David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants are :

CARDINAL/CARDINAL Niazi Kazali born DATE , resident in GPE , in the “ GPE ” ( “ GPE ” ) , NORP and NORP national ;

PERSON born DATE , resident in GPE , GPE , NORP and NORP national ;

CARDINAL/CARDINAL PERSON , born DATE , resident in GPE , GPE , NORP and NORP national ;

PERSON , born DATE , resident in GPE , “ GPE ” , NORP national ;

PERSON , born DATE , resident in GPE , GPE , NORP national ;

Enis Bolcocuk , born DATE , resident in PERSON ( GPE ) , “ GPE ” , NORP national ;

ORG , born DATE , resident in PERSON ( GPE ) , “ GPE ” , NORP national ;

PERSON , born DATE , resident in GPE , “ TRNC ” , NORP national ;

PERSON , born DATE , resident in GPE , GPE , GPE and NORP national ;

PERSON , born DATE , resident in GPE , GPE , GPE national ;

CARDINAL/CARDINAL PERSON , born in DATE , resident in GPE , GPE , NORP national ;

represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

CARDINAL/CARDINAL PERSON , born DATE , resident in GPE , “ TRNC ” , NORP national ;

CARDINAL/CARDINAL PERSON , born DATE , resident in GPE , “ GPE ” , NORP national ;

represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

PERSON , born in DATE , resident in PERSON ( GPE ) , “ GPE ” , NORP national ;

represented before the ORG by Mr A. Aksu , a lawyer practising in GPE .

CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG , born in DATE , resident in GPE , NORP national ;

CARDINAL/CARDINAL Niyazi Salih , born in DATE , resident in GPE , GPE , NORP national ;

represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

Application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerns a plot of land ( a house with a vineyard and fruit trees ) in the village of Vroisha . The applicants moved to GPE in DATE and rented out the property in Vroisha . The applicants continued to visit the village during DATE until DATE , when the inhabitants of Vroisha left the village due to alleged acts of aggression by NORP Cypriots .

Niazi Kazali currently resides on NORP - Cypriot property ; PERSON GPE resides abroad .

Application no . CARDINAL relates to several plots of land ( a house with LOC and fruit trees ) , also in Vroisha , inherited by the applicants from a deceased relative in DATE . The applicants ( with the exception of the fifth applicant ) left the property in DATE due to alleged acts of aggression by NORP Cypriots ( the deceased mother of the fifth applicant also left Vroisha in DATE ) .

PERSON and PERSON now reside abroad ; PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and GPE reside on NORP - Cypriot property ; PERSON resides on NORP - Cypriot property .

The applicants allege that their properties were burnt down in or DATE .

Together with other former villagers of ORG , the applicants formed ORG ( “ the Association ” ) , which is based in GPE . On DATE the ORG made submissions to the NORP Minister of the ORG via ORG in GPE demanding the return of the village to the legal owners and compensation . On DATE ORG in GPE replied indicating that ORG was examining the request . The letter also advised that according to ORG , under ORG and Other Matters Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , all NORP - Cypriot properties which had been abandoned in the free areas of GPE came under the custodianship of the Custodian of NORP - Cypriot properties and that since the “ GPE Problem ” was unresolved , the owners of those properties could not exercise their rights with regard to those properties .

On DATE , the Minister of the ORG replied to the ORG ’s submissions . He indicated that :

“ ... no damage was caused to the properties of the T / C inhabitants of Vroisha village or any loss of life by organs of the Republic .

The village of Vroisha was voluntarily abandoned by its T / C inhabitants in DATE ... What survives from the buildings DATE are ruins . The destruction is basically due to abandonment and the lapse of time . ”

He noted that the land had remained unused and unexploited since the village was abandoned . He advised that ORG and Surveys would be able to furnish owners with information about the properties upon request . He concluded by reiterating that :

“ ... all T / C properties in the area controlled by the Republic came under the custody of the Minister of the ORG acting as the Custodian of the T / C Properties in accordance with the provisions of the T / ORG and Other Matters ) ( Temporary Provisions ) Laws of DATE . They will remain so until DATE of the abnormal situation created as a result of the NORP invasion and occupation of DATE . ”

The applicants in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL subsequently obtained a search certificate and , on DATE , the first applicant transferred his interest in the property to his son , the second applicant .

The complaints relate to property , including a mansion , in GPE transferred to the applicants in DATE by way of a gift from their mother , who was a citizen of GPE DATE . The mansion was destroyed through alleged acts of aggression by NORP Cypriots in DATE . A house , shop and restaurant / bar have since been constructed on the property without the applicants’ consent .

PERSON and PERSON currently reside abroad . PERSON stays in NORP - Cypriot property when he visits the “ TRNC ” .

The applicants instructed a lawyer in GPE to have the title to the property transferred into their names . The new title deed was issued on CARDINAL DATE .

Application no . CARDINAL relates to property in GPE ( LOC and a well ) . In DATE , the applicant was taken prisoner and released north of FAC . He was unable to return to his property .

The applicant resides in a house built on NORP - Cypriot property .

On DATE a notice of expropriation was published in ORG indicating that part of the applicant ’s property was to be compulsorily acquired by ORG . On DATE the expropriation order was published and on DATE ORG offered compensation in respect of the compulsory purchase . On DATE the compensation offered was accepted by the Custodian on behalf of the applicant and the agreed amount was deposited by ORG into a special fund on DATE .

A notice of expropriation regarding the remaining part of the applicant ’s property was published in ORG on DATE . On DATE the expropriation order was published and on CARDINAL DATE compensation was offered .

Application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerns property in GPE in the district of GPE ( QUANTITY houses , one of which he occupied , and a plot of land with trees ) . The applicant left the property in DATE due to alleged acts of aggression by NORP Cypriots .

The applicant resides in NORP - Cypriot property .

On DATE a requisition order by ORG was issued in respect of part of the applicant ’s property . The offer for compensation by ORG is pending . The remainder of the property is being used by a NORP for agricultural purposes .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyer wrote to the Service for ORG at ORG , enclosing the title deeds and seeking the return of the properties and compensation . On DATE he received a reply from the Acting Director of the Service for ORG in the following terms :

“ ... ORG , which have been abandoned as a result of NORP invasion and occupation , have come under the management and custody of ORG , according to the provisions of ORG ) ( Temporary Provisions ) Law No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

According to the above PERSON , the Minister of ORG has been appointed as the Custodian of all ORG and all abandoned properties came under his management with the aim of meeting the needs of the refugees .

In view of the above , I regret to inform you that your application is not able to be considered at present . Any matter outstanding will be considered and settled upon the final solution of ORG . ”

The applicants did not commence an action in ORG to seek payment of the compensation deposited in respect of the compulsory acquisitions .

The application relates to property comprised of a vineyard and business centre , containing CARDINAL shops and CARDINAL residences , in GPE . The applicants allege that they were transferred north of FAC in GPE in DATE , as a result of the threat to their lives following the events of DATE and the kidnapping and disappearance of the fourth applicant ’s husband in DATE . They were unable to return to their property .

PERSON now resides abroad but rents a house in the “ GPE ” built on NORP - Cypriot property ; PERSON , PERSON and PERSON reside on NORP - Cypriot property .

NORP In DATE CARDINAL of the applicants returned to GPE . The property was within a fenced - off area and was in a poor state of repair . The applicants sought information regarding the property , with no success . They subsequently appointed a lawyer who , in DATE , wrote to ORG at ORG , enclosing the title deeds and seeking the return of the properties and compensation . On DATE , she received a reply in similar terms to those received by the applicants in applications ORG and CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The application concerns QUANTITY houses in GPE inherited by the applicant from her parents . She let these houses for some time after moving to GPE . Following the events of DATE she was not able to collect rent as she was not able to visit the properties . In DATE she visited the CARDINAL houses as well as CARDINAL plots of land she had bought with her husband . They had been rented to displaced NORP Cypriots by ORG since DATE .

The applicant currently resides on NORP - Cypriot property .

The applicant never applied to the Custodian to seek the return of her property . She considered that in light of the jurisprudence of ORG , any legal action would have been ineffective .

The application concerns a plot of land ( a house with fruit trees ) in GPE which was partially transferred to the applicant ’s mother by the applicant ’s maternal grandfather in DATE , with the remainder inherited following his death on an unspecified date . The applicant ’s grandfather was forced to leave the property in DATE due to alleged acts of aggression by NORP Cypriots . The applicant inherited the property following the death of his mother .

The applicant , who resides abroad , took no steps to seek to recover the property .

The application relates to property ( including a house ) in GPE which belonged to the applicant ’s father . The applicant ’s father left the property in DATE following an army posting to GPE and the house was left empty . There has been no access to the property since DATE .

The applicant resides abroad .

On DATE , following the death of his father , the applicant wrote to ORG asking for information regarding the property . The Custodian consented to the transfer of the property into the applicant ’s name on DATE .

The applicant claimed that he instructed a solicitor to assist in the recovery of the properties , to no avail .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW prohibits discrimination between NORP and NORP Cypriots .

Article CARDINAL grants the right to citizens to move freely throughout the island and to reside in any part of it , subject to any restrictions imposed by law and necessary for the purposes of defence or public health or provided as punishment to be passed by a competent court .

Article CARDINAL protects the right to property and provides that no deprivation , restriction or limitation of any such right shall be made except where it is imposed by law and is absolutely necessary in the interests of public safety , public health or public morals , town and country planning , the development and use of any property for the promotion of the public benefit or for the protection of the rights of others .

Article CARDINAL guarantees the right to equal treatment and nondiscrimination .

Article CARDINAL enables a party to any judicial proceedings to raise the question of the constitutionality of any law or decision . However , the provisions of this Article were rendered inoperative following the intercommunal problems in DATE and the procedure for reference under the above provision is no longer applicable . ORG ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL was enacted in order to address a situation of emergency and to set up the necessary judicial machinery for the continued administration of justice . By virtue of this law , the CARDINAL highest courts , that is , ORG and ORG , were merged into CARDINAL , ORG , to which the jurisdiction and powers of the CARDINAL pre - existing courts were transferred . The establishment and operation of the new ORG was held to be in conformity with the LAW on the basis of recognised principles of LAW ( the Attorney - General of the Republic v. PERSON and others , ( DATE ) C.L.R. CARDINAL ) . As the procedure for reference under LAW is no longer applicable in cases other than those of ORG , questions of alleged unconstitutionality are treated as issues of law in the proceedings , subject to revision on appeal in due course , in so far as the lower courts are concerned . All courts when dealing with a case are competent to examine questions of alleged unconstitutionality arising in the case which are material for the determination of any matter at issue .

Article CARDINAL vests exclusive jurisdiction in ORG to adjudicate on complaints that administrative decisions are contrary to the LAW or any law , including LAW , or are made in excess of or in abuse of the powers vested in any organ , authority or person .

Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the Law ” ) was enacted according to its preamble to regulate the administration of NORP - Cypriot properties in GPE :

“ Whereas , because of the massive removal of the NORP - Cypriot population as a result of the NORP invasion to the areas occupied by the NORP invasion forces and the prohibition by such forces of the movement of such population within the areas of GPE , properties which consist of movable and immovable property were abandoned ,

And whereas it became essential for the protection of those properties to take immediate measures ,

And whereas the measures taken included the administration of such properties by a special committee which was constituted through administrative arrangements ,

And whereas the regulation by law of the question of the NORP - Cypriot properties in the Republic became necessary ... ”

Section CARDINAL provides definitions of relevant terms used in the PERSON :

“ ‘ Abnormal situation’ means the situation created as a result of the NORP invasion which continues to exist until ORG , by notification published in ORG , appoints a date for the termination of such situation ;

‘ NORP - Cypriot’ means a NORP - Cypriot who does not have his usual residence in the areas controlled by the LOC and includes a company or other legal person which is controlled by a NORP - Cypriot , as well as by the PERSON ;

‘ NORP - Cypriot property’ includes every property movable or immovable which belongs to a NORP - Cypriot and is situated in the areas under the control of the LOC and includes ORG . ”

Section CARDINAL establishes the post of Custodian of NORP - Cypriot properties who is to administer such property in accordance with the provisions of LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL and exercise the functions conferred on him by that PERSON during the abnormal situation and until final settlement of this matter is reached .

Section CARDINAL stipulates that :

“ Subject to the provisions of this PERSON , the Custodian in administering NORP - Cypriot properties and exercising the functions conferred on him by this PERSON , shall have all the rights and obligations which their NORP - Cypriot owner would have :

Provided that , notwithstanding the amendment to the principal law made by this PERSON , all acts or decisions which have been done or taken by the Custodian , in accordance with the principal law , shall be regarded as having been done or taken lawfully . ”

Section CARDINAL sets out some specific functions of the Custodian , without prejudice to the generality of LAW . These include :

“ ( a ) to administer every NORP - Cypriot property in accordance with the circumstances of each case and to this end–

( i ) to collect every sum which is due to the beneficiary and to give the necessary receipts ; ...

( ii ) to collect and dispose of the produce of such property in the most beneficial manner for the owner ;

( iii ) to make the necessary payments for the fulfilment of obligations concerning the property under administration ;

( iv ) to arrange for the necessary repairs , improvements , cultivations , plantations or , where necessary , such changes to the property which would be beneficial to the owner ;

( v ) to make arrangements , to enter , terminate or cancel contracts or to undertake obligations or charges concerning each such property and more specifically to lease same at the most favourable terms for the owner ; ...

( vi ) to sell or otherwise dispose of every such movable property which is subject to deterioration or which because of its nature ought to be sold or disposed in the interest of the owner ;

( vii ) generally to do everything which is consequential to or necessary for the administration of NORP - Cypriot properties .

( c ) To accept service of actions , reference or other judicial process concerning NORP - Cypriot property , to represent and bind the owner of any NORP - Cypriot property before any judicial , administrative or other authority in the LOC or anywhere else outside the LOC , to give or receive notifications by virtue of the provisions of any PERSON applicable in connection with NORP - Cypriot property and to be present at local enquiries and negotiations concerning such property .

( d ) To administer the Fund of NORP - Cypriot properties which is established by virtue of LAW of this PERSON ;

Provided that in the case of immovable property , the Custodian , in the exercise of his functions by virtue of this section , can not take actions as a result of which after the termination of the operation of this Law–

( i ) The owner would be other than the owner at the date of entry into force of the present PERSON , except in exceptional cases in which this would be beneficial for the owner or necessary in the public interest ; or

( ii ) the right of the owner concerning the property would be in any way restricted or charged more than what would be absolutely necessary or beneficial for the property or the owner or necessary in the public interest ; ... ”

Section CARDINAL requires the Custodian , in administering the ORG properties and in exercising his functions by virtue of LAW , to look after the needs of refugees and at the same time serve the interests of the owners of the said properties on the basis of “ prescribed criteria ” .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL :

“ The payment of any sum due to an owner of NORP - Cypriot property in relation to such property is suspended during the abnormal situation which exists in GPE by reason of the NORP occupation . ”

Section CARDINAL establishes a “ Special Fund ” :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A Special Fund under the name ‘ Fund of NORP - Cypriot GPE is constituted by this PERSON and for the purposes thereof , which is under the administration of the Custodian . In the ORG are deposited all receipts and all payments are made therefrom , in accordance with the provisions of this PERSON .

Section CARDINAL provides that every person who pays any debt due to a NORP to any person other than the Custodian ; or assumes possession of or in any way uses a NORP - Cypriot property in a manner other than that which is provided in PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment not exceeding DATE or to a fine not exceeding QUANTITY or to both such penalties .

Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL was amended by Law No . CARDINAL ) of DATE , published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , by the insertion of additional provisions . The following was inserted at the end of section CARDINAL :

“ Provided that in the exercise of his above authority to administer NORP - Cypriot properties during the abnormal situation the Minister also has the power as custodian , to lift by duly reasoned decision and under terms which are in his judgment appropriate the custodianship concerning particular NORP - Cypriot property or part of it , after taking into account in connection with the administration the situation and circumstances of each case and weighing all factors relevant to this matter , including whether the NORP - Cypriot owner of the property or his heirs or successors in title , as the case may be , occupy property belonging to a NORP - Cypriot in the areas not under the ORG ’s control :

Provided further that inter alia the following factors weigh in favour of lifting the Custodianship of NORP - Cypriot property–

( a ) that the matter concerns the administration of property which at the time it came under its regime of custodianship , its NORP - Cypriot owner had ordinary residence abroad where he had gone at any time before or after the NORP invasion of DATE , and the said owner continues to reside there or has returned or intends to return from abroad for permanent settlement in the Government controlled areas of the Republic ,

( b ) that the matter concerns the administration of property which at any time after it came under its regime of custodianship by the Custodian the NORP - Cypriot owner of the property settled permanently in the Government controlled areas of the LOC and continues to be constantly settled there permanently ,

( c ) that the property under administration concerns a house which its ORG owner was living [ in ] and occupying before the NORP invasion of DATE and intends to live in it upon his coming from the occupied areas for permanent settlement in the Government controlled areas of the LOC . ”

A new section CARDINAL was inserted into the PERSON :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Violation of a right guaranteed by LAW or the Protocols thereto ratified by PERSON , owing to the application of a provision of this PERSON , is actionable .

( CARDINAL ) A person alleging violation of any right guaranteed by LAW and or its Protocols owing to the application of a provision of this PERSON in his case , is entitled , in case of rejection of his relevant claim by the Minister , to have recourse to the district courts by way of action brought against the Republic and the Custodian for the alleged violation , and to claim for the violation the remedies provided for in this section :

Provided that where the remedies sought include a claim by the owner for an order of the court that his property under custodianship under the provisions of this law be restored to him , the action is also directed against the person lawfully in occupation of the property .

( CARDINAL ) In determining in an action under sub - section ( CARDINAL ) whether the plaintiff’

( CARDINAL ) Where in an action under this section the court determines that the plaintiff ’s right was violated , he is entitled in the action :

( a ) to compensation for any pecuniary damage , loss , costs , and expenses actually incurred on account of the violation ,

( b ) to compensation for non - pecuniary damage or injury sustained on account of the violation ,

( c ) to legal costs actually incurred by him on account of the violation ,

( d ) to the issue of a binding order of recognition of right under ORG ,

( e ) to any other remedy that the court has power to grant in exercise of its civil jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Laws or any other law for the time being in force , or the applicable general principles of law .

( CARDINAL ) For ascertaining the damage attributable to the violation as provided for in subsection ( CARDINAL ) and assessing and awarding compensation under the said sub - section , the court takes into account the criteria and factors taken into account for this purpose by ORG as they transpire from its case - law in cases of violation of the right concerned which is guaranteed by LAW or its Protocols .

Where in an action under this section the court issues an order for the restoration to the plaintiff of property under custodianship , the Custodian and the property ’s lawful occupier are entitled in the action by relevant respective counterclaims against the plaintiff , to any amounts of costs that each has actually incurred for repairs , improvements , developments , building and conversions he has effected on the property under this PERSON :

Provided that the said right of the lawful occupier is only for costs of repairs , improvements , developments , building and conversions he has effected on the property with the Custodian ’s permission .

( CARDINAL ) Where the Custodian for purposes of compliance with a judgment by the court in an action under this section decides to lift the custodianship of NORP - Cypriot property , he is entitled by action against the owner in whose favour the said judgment was issued , or against his heirs or successors in title , as the case may be , to any amount of costs he has actually incurred for repairs , improvements , developments , building and conversions he has effected on the property under this PERSON while it was under custodianship :

Provided that a person lawfully in occupation of the said property at the time of the judgment of the court or of the above decision of the Custodian and subsequently forced to abandon it as a result of the court judgment or the lifting of its custodianship , is entitled by action against the above owner , his heirs and successors in title , to any amount of costs he has actually incurred for repairs , improvements , developments , building and conversions he has effected on the property with the Custodian ’s permission whilst he was in occupation . ”

The plaintiffs , NORP living in GPE since DATE , were owners of CARDINAL plots of land and a house . In DATE refugee housing was built on CARDINAL of the plots ; the other CARDINAL plots and the house were granted to refugees for temporary use . The plaintiffs filed a civil action before ORG seeking eviction orders , rents as from DATE of trespass and exemplary damages .

On DATE , ORG found that the respondent had committed trespass . It held that Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL was not applicable to the case as no evidence had been put before it establishing that the plaintiffs had abandoned their property as a result of the NORP invasion of DATE . The court dismissed the GPE claim for exemplary damages and awarded them ordinary damages for trespass , noting that they had , during the proceedings , withdrawn their application for return of the house . The Attorney - General appealed the judgment .

Handing down its judgment , ORG set aside the findings of the first - instance court concerning the non - applicability of LAW to the case . Relying on the definition of “ NORP - Cypriot ” in section QUANTITY of the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court concluded that the definition of “ abandoned property ” had been specified by the legislator as the property of a NORP who did not have his ordinary residence in the areas controlled by the Republic . The meaning of the term “ abandoned properties ” was therefore unambiguous and LAW applied in the PERSON case .

ORG ordered that the case be sent back to ORG for retrial to determine the amount of compensation from the date of trespass as ascertained by the first instance court until DATE of entry into force of Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE and to determine whether the relevant provisions of LAW were constitutional . It noted that if the answer to the latter question was positive then the claim for damages for the period after DATE would have to be dismissed ; if negative , then damages would have to be assessed for the period after DATE .

The case was eventually settled at the retrial stage and the constitutionality issue was therefore not determined .

On DATE , ORG rejected the argument that Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL infringed LAW by requisitioning property indefinitely , noting that the law did not provide for requisition or acquisition but administration , and for a temporary period only .

The Custodian initiated a civil action for possession of certain properties in accordance with LAW . The defendants submitted that they were in possession of the relevant properties in accordance with their agreement with the ORG ( a public benefit foundation ) and that ORG properties were excluded from the application of the PERSON .

On DATE , in an interim judgment , ORG decided that properties owned by the ORG were not excluded from LAW . It considered that LAW was contrary to LAW but that it could be justified on the basis of the doctrine of necessity for the administration and protection of the abandoned TurkishCypriot property . The defendants appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It held that following the NORP invasion and occupation , the ORG was entitled to take measures which entailed limitation or even deprivation of the rights and liberties set out in LAW . Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL introduced measures to allow the ORG to meet the needs that arose due to the NORP invasion and , the court concluded , the measures were both necessary and proportionate .

NORP The plaintiff , a NORP , was the owner of a property in the district of GPE since DATE . Following the enactment of LAW , his property was vested in the Custodian and used by CARDINAL NORP Cypriots . In DATE , the plaintiff moved from the occupied area of GPE to the government - controlled area and requested that his house be returned to him . His request was dismissed on the ground that as a result of the NORP invasion of DATE , all NORP - Cypriot properties had been vested in the Custodian until final settlement of the NORP problem .

The plaintiff lodged a recourse against this decision with ORG under Article CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He contended , inter alia , that he was entitled to recover his property as he resided in the government - controlled area , relying on section CARDINAL of the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Attorney General argued that “ residence ” was determined on DATE the PERSON entered into force and not at any subsequent time so that from the moment the Custodian took over the administration of NORP - Cypriot property , such administration would continue as long as the PERSON was in force .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG ’s interpretation of LAW , finding that such an interpretation would constitute an illogical , unjustifiable and excessive limitation of the fundamental constitutional right to property . It referred to the preamble of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and held that :

“ ... the Legislator also decided , as it appears from the definition of the term ‘ NORP - Cypriot’ , as his criterion , that only in the case where the owners of the properties in question are not resident in the areas controlled by the Republic is their protection necessary , evidently as those NORP properties whose owners live in the areas controlled by the Republic do not need such protection , thus establishing a criterion which does not apply generally to NORP - Cypriots en masse but specifically to each owner . The ordinary residence of the specific owner in the areas controlled by the Republic , as the criterion of the same Legislator , puts the said specific properties on the same footing as all the other properties there and rules out the intervention or further intervention of the Custodian in their protection and administration . As things are , it does not matter whether the specific owner acquired his ordinary residence in the areas controlled by the Republic before or after CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and whether he returns to his ordinary residence there and seeks to live in his own house . In such a case , the criterion of the PERSON itself excludes the property from the administration of the Custodian . And , furthermore , it is certainly not only , to avoid referring to elementary human logic , the normal rules of interpretation which dictate this view but also the fundamental principles of interpretation which require the interpretation of the laws to be compatible with constitutional rights and to be analogously restrictive . If the PERSON were to be interpreted otherwise so as to cover the continuation of the administration of NORP - Cypriot property after the reestablishment of the ordinary residence of the owner in the areas controlled by the Republic , in all probability it would constitute an unjustified and excessive , even as regards the necessity expressly stated in the PERSON as justifying this , restriction of the fundamental constitutional right to property . This approach also arises from the jurisprudence of the ORG as regards the validity of the principle of proportionality , as an objective and reasonable criterion , concerning the restrictions which may be placed on the basis of discrimination in violation of LAW ( which is reflected in LAW ) . It is sufficient for me to refer to a very recent decision in the case of PERSON v GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL . ”

Accordingly , ORG upheld the recourse and annulled the decision in question .

The Attorney General filed an appeal against the judgment but withdrew this on DATE . The plaintiff ’s property was returned to him on DATE .

The plaintiff , a NORP , was appointed administrator of the estate of his deceased father , who owned a CARDINAL share of a plot of land in the district of GPE which had vested in the Custodian . Part of the property had been granted to refugees for temporary use and part was compulsorily purchased , with the Custodian ’s consent , for public interest purposes . An amount in respect of compensation for the compulsory acquisition had been deposited in the Special Fund of NORP - Cypriot properties ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . However , payment of the sum to the plaintiff was suspended , in accordance with section CARDINAL of Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL , for as long as the abnormal situation continued to exist ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The plaintiff sought the transfer of the property to the legal heirs and payment of the amount due as a consequence of the compulsory acquisition . Although the Custodian gave his consent to the issue of letters of administration , he noted that the NORP - Cypriot owners and their heirs did not have the right to the use of their properties vested in the Custodian and were barred from exercising any property rights without the permission of the Custodian as long as the abnormal situation created by the NORP occupation continued . He further noted that the request for payment of the compensation could not be satisfied because , in accordance with section LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL , payment of any amount owed to an owner of ORG was suspended .

The plaintiff lodged a recourse requesting the recovery of his property and claiming that LAW was contrary to LAW and the constitutional principle of equality , and that the compulsory acquisition had been unlawful .

DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the recourse . It found that , as the plaintiff had been living in the occupied areas , Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL was applicable to the case . It further found that the plaintiff was not prevented from fulfilling his obligations as administrator of the deceased ’s estate and from distributing and transferring the property to the lawful heirs . He was only prevented temporarily from possessing and administering the property . This limitation did not affect his rights and interests , which would be granted to him when the abnormal situation ended .

The court also dismissed the plaintiff ’s claim as to the incompatibility of LAW with LAW . In this respect it observed that the ORG , in DATE , had found itself faced with circumstances which necessitated the creation of a state of emergency . The ORG had , therefore , the duty to adopt measures even if these limited the fundamental rights and liberties protected by LAW . The mass movement of NORP and the abandonment by them of their properties in areas which were controlled by GPE gave rise to a need to protect these properties for their ORG benefit , as stated in the preamble of the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The enactment and adoption of the PERSON was completely justified .

The plaintiff lodged an appeal . The judgment in the appeal was handed down on DATE . The court noted that the applicants did not request the Custodian to return the property . It further observed that issues arose as to the constitutionality of LAW and it encouraged applicants to go to FAC , which had jurisdiction to examine the matter .

The plaintiff was a NORP who had abandoned his property as a result of the events of DATE and had since been living in the occupied part of GPE . Part of his property had been granted to refugees for temporary use and part of the property had been compulsorily acquired for public benefit purposes .

The plaintiff requested damages for the part of his property that had been compulsory acquired and the return of the remainder of his property . The requests were rejected and the plaintiff filed a recourse before ORG . He complained that LAW infringed ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and LAW No . CARDINAL of the Convention . He further claimed that following the relaxation of restrictions on movement from the occupied areas to the areas controlled by the Republic , the abnormal situation on which the abovementioned law was based had ceased to exist . He relied on the ORG ’s judgments in the case of PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINALVI and PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , ORG CARDINALV.

On DATE ORG dismissed the recourse . It reaffirmed the need to protect the abandoned properties of NORP and to help displaced NORP Cypriots who had lost their property that had been created following the NORP occupation . The abnormal situation still existed and would only cease to exist following a decision of ORG to that effect , in accordance with section CARDINAL of the PERSON . NORP Cypriots were not deprived of their property as they continued to be the owners , notwithstanding the fact that during the abnormal situation , the administration of the properties was vested in the Custodian . The court further considered that the fact that the abnormal situation had continued for so many years did not affect the temporary nature of the PERSON as it did not intend to impose permanent limitations or to deprive the lawful owners of their rights . The measures adopted were absolutely necessary and proportionate to the situation which had to be faced .

With regard to LAW No . CARDINAL the court noted :

“ LAW protocol , after recognising the right of every natural or legal person to peaceful enjoyment of his property , refers to the exceptions , to set aside the right for public interest purposes under conditions provided for by the law and by the general principles of public international law . The protection afforded by LAW does not take away the right of the state to enact such laws as it considers to be necessary for controlling the use of property in accordance with the general interest ...

The exception of LAW exists in the present case . LAW was mandated for reasons of public interest which are obvious . On the contrary in GPE ’s case the deprivation of the rights of Ms. PERSON was made without any legal basis and of course without the existence of any law . Let us not forget that the occupied part of GPE does not constitute a state recognised by the international community . Moreover , in the case of LAW ownership remains with the NORP - Cypriot owners and the Custodian simply has the responsibility and competence to administer the property until the end of the abnormal situation ... ”

The plaintiff lodged an appeal before ORG but the appeal was withdrawn on DATE in order for an action to be lodged with ORG in accordance with the amended LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

DATE . On DATE ORG , hearing an appeal from ORG , handed down its judgment in a case where the plaintiff had argued that LAW violated the LAW and the LAW . It noted that the constitutionality of LAW was well - established in NORP jurisprudence , referring to its judgment in PERSON . It accordingly dismissed the appeal .

The plaintiffs were NORP residing in the occupied part of GPE . They filed a recourse before ORG challenging the decision of the Custodian to refuse to return the property they owned in GPE , arguing that they had not abandoned their property following the NORP invasion and that , accordingly , Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL did not apply .

On DATE ORG dismissed the recourse . It relied , inter alia , on the judgments of ORG in the cases of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON and ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG sitting as an appellate court dismissed the LAW appeal . It noted the ORG ’s decision in PERSON v. GPE ( striking out dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE , and the ORG ’s position as presented to this ORG in that case . However , it did not consider that in making a proposal for friendly settlement the ORG had accepted that LAW violated the LAW . It further considered that their undertaking to amend the PERSON was irrelevant , as the amendment concerned merely the lifting of custodianship for NORP - Cypriot property owners who permanently resided abroad before or after DATE .

In the case before , the court noted that the plaintiffs’ claim was concerned with the applicability of Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL and accordingly concluded that the only issue raised in the case was whether the Custodian was a trespasser . This was a matter of private law and there was therefore no jurisdiction in the case .

The plaintiff lodged an action for trespass and alleged a violation of his property rights as protected by LAW . On CARDINAL DATE ORG handed down its judgment .

The court considered whether the applicant ’s property fell within the scope of LAW . It noted that the PERSON applied to properties owned by NORP - Cypriots who did not have their usual residence in the territories controlled by the Republic . It referred to ORG judgment in PERSON and considered that this decision confirmed that LAW could be justified on the basis of necessity . The judge emphasised that ownership of properties was not transferred under LAW : only the administration vested in the Custodian . Accordingly the measures did not restrict or deprive the owners of their rights and were absolutely necessary .

The plaintiff ’s claim was accordingly dismissed .

Between the entry into force of the amendments to LAW on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , when the Government provided statistical information to the ORG as to the operation of the amended PERSON , approximately CARDINAL applications were made to the Custodian requesting the lifting of custodianship over NORP - Cypriot property .

CARDINAL of the applications lodged concerned sales of properties to NORP - Cypriot buyers . In these cases , the relevant sale agreement was lodged with ORG for completion of the necessary procedures prior to referral to the Custodian for a decision on whether to lift the custodianship . Of these , CARDINAL applications were still under examination by ORG . The remaining CARDINAL cases were referred by ORG to the Custodian for decision .

Of the CARDINAL sales cases referred to him , the Custodian decided to lift custodianship in CARDINAL , in both cases reversing prior negative decisions made before DATE . He declined to lift the custodianship in CARDINAL cases . In the remaining CARDINAL case , inquiries as to the facts and circumstances were ongoing .

Of the CARDINAL applications lodged which did not concern sales , inquiries by the Custodian as to the facts and circumstances were ongoing in CARDINAL . These CARDINAL outstanding cases concern the return of property ( CARDINAL cases ) , the return of property for occupation by the owners ( CARDINAL cases ) , requests for negotiations for the purchase of the property by the Government ( CARDINAL cases ) and a claim that the property does not fall within the scope of LAW ( CARDINAL case ) . In the only decided case , custodianship was lifted under an agreement with the NORP - Cypriot owner following negotiations for the purchase of the property by the Government at an agreed price reflecting its present day value .

It can therefore be seen that of the CARDINAL applications lodged DATE and CARDINAL DATE and put before the Custodian for decision , inquiries were continuing in respect of CARDINAL . In the CARDINAL concluded cases , he agreed to lift the custodianship in CARDINAL and refused to do so in CARDINAL .

The Custodian also examined under the PERSON as amended a further CARDINAL applications made prior to CARDINAL DATE . Examination of all CARDINAL applications has been concluded .

A total of CARDINAL of these applications concerned sales and the Custodian agreed to lift custodianship in CARDINAL of them . He declined to do so in CARDINAL cases .

He agreed to lift the custodianship in the CARDINAL non - sales cases . CARDINAL of these concerned agreements with the NORP - Cypriot owners following negotiations for the purchase of the property by the Government at an agreed price reflecting its present day value . In the remaining case custodianship was lifted in respect of a transfer under a will .

NORP In summary , of the CARDINAL cases lodged prior to CARDINAL DATE , custodianship was lifted in CARDINAL cases and was not lifted in CARDINAL cases .

In total , the Custodian has decided CARDINAL applications to date . In CARDINAL cases he lifted custodianship and in CARDINAL he refused to do so .

In CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cases in which custodianship was lifted , the owners had their ordinary residence abroad and did not occupy NORP - Cypriot property in the north of GPE . In CARDINAL of them the owners were permanently settled in areas controlled by the Republic . In the remaining case the owner was permanently settled in the north of the island and custodianship was lifted in order to enable the administrator of the estate of a deceased NORP - Cypriot owner to sell part of the property to cover administration costs and enable distribution of the property to the heirs . Aside from this case , all other cases in which custodianship was lifted concerned sales , either to NORP - Cypriot buyers or to the Government .

All CARDINAL cases in which the Custodian refused to lift custodianship were sales cases . In CARDINAL of them , the owners were permanently settled in the north of the island and occupied NORP - Cypriot property . In these cases the occupation of NORP - Cypriot property was a factor taken into account by the Custodian but was not , in most of these cases , the only factor . In CARDINAL cases the owners alleged that they had their ordinary residence abroad but failed to substantiate the claim despite being requested to do so and in CARDINAL cases the owners failed to provide any details about their place of residence despite being requested to do so . In these cases the failure to provide the information was a factor taken into account by the Custodian as it was possible that they occupied NORP - Cypriot property in the north of the island . It was not , however , the only factor . Other relevant factors included low sale prices indicating that buyers were seeking to take advantage of the abnormal situation in order to make a profit at the expense of the owner . In CARDINAL cases the owners had their ordinary residence abroad but also occupied NORP - Cypriot property in the north of the island . In these cases the occupation of NORP - Cypriot property was the only reason for not lifting the custodianship . Finally , in CARDINAL cases the owners had their ordinary residence abroad and did not occupy NORP - Cypriot property in the north of the island . In these cases the Custodian weighed all relevant factors ; in most cases the sale price was significantly lower than the property ’s market value .

CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cases decided by the Custodian involved claims for compensation . In CARDINAL cases , civil proceedings had previously been lodged in FAC for damages for trespass ( loss of rents ) . These proceedings were withdrawn following the lifting of the custodianship . In the remaining case , the buyer filed civil proceedings in ORG under the amended law on DATE seeking damages for a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL as a result of the Custodian ’s decision not to lift the custodianship of a property subject to a saleagreement with the NORP - Cypriot owners . The Custodian subsequently agreed to lift custodianship and the proceedings were withdrawn .

Following the entry into force of the amendments to LAW , CARDINAL civil actions were filed with ORG against GPE and the Custodian alleging a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL and claiming compensation and other remedies .

Of these , CARDINAL actions concerned refusals by the Custodian prior to CARDINAL DATE to lift custodianship so that the property could be transferred under sale agreements . Of these , CARDINAL ( the ORG proceedings lodged by a buyer described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) was subsequently withdrawn . In another an application has been made to the Custodian for re - examination , which is pending . The plaintiffs in CARDINAL of the cases claim compensation for damage and loss caused by the refusal to lift custodianship and thereby allow a property transfer to be effected pursuant to a sale agreement , as well as general damages for the alleged violation of the ORG as a result of the custodianship . They also seek declaratory judgments that they are entitled to exercise their ownership rights , and orders lifting the custodianship . In the case in which re - examination has been requested , no compensation is sought : the claim brought by the heir of a deceased NORP - Cypriot owner was for a declaratory judgment recognising her right to the property and an order lifting the custodianship .

The remaining CARDINAL actions concern a refusal of the Custodian before DATE to lift custodianship and return the property to the owners free of occupation . Damages for loss of use and for an alleged violation of LAW No . CARDINAL are also claimed .

In conclusion , CARDINAL cases are pending before FAC . At the time of submission of the information , the exchange of pleadings had not yet been completed in the cases .


The applicant is an NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON of ORG , a firm of solicitors based in GPE .

A.

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ the Department ” ) notified the applicant in writing that his application for a road service licence had been refused on the ground that he was not considered to be of “ good repute ” within the meaning of sections CARDINALA(CARDINAL)(a ) and CARDINALA(CARDINALA)(a ) of LAW ( GPE ) DATE as amended . The ORG ’s refusal was based on the fact that the applicant was convicted on DATE of possessing explosives , firearms and ammunition and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The applicant was released on DATE .

Following a hearing held on DATE before ORG ( “ the Review Body ” ) , the ORG informed the applicant in DATE that it had accepted the ORG recommendation and had decided to uphold its decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant ’s solicitor requested the ORG to provide reasons for ORG decision . By letter dated DATE , the ORG informed the applicant that ORG had met on DATE to hear his appeal and had taken into account all the information before it , including the character references which the applicant had supplied . It was ORG unanimous recommendation that the ORG ’s initial decision be upheld . ORG drew the applicant ’s attention to the fact that ORG was an independent institution which did not have any power to take decisions on appeals from its licensing authority . ORG functions were limited to making recommendations for consideration by ORG . ORG took a final decision on the applicant ’s application in which it affirmed its licensing authority ’s earlier decision to refuse him an operator ’s licence on the grounds specified in its letter of DATE .

The applicant subsequently sought leave to apply for judicial review of the ORG ’s decision on the grounds inter alia that the decision refusing him a licence was discriminatory , unreasonable , unfair and unlawful ; that the licensing authority had given undue emphasis to his criminal conviction ; and that the same authority had failed to take into account relevant matters such as the character references he had submitted , his qualifications and the fact that official and private agencies had earmarked funding for the business venture which he was attempting to mount . The applicant also prayed in aid the provisions on the rehabilitation of offenders following their release from prison .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer informed ORG of GPE that the applicant no longer wished to proceed with the leave application . Mr Justice PERSON accordingly dismissed the application . According to the applicant , PERSON Justice PERSON stated at the leave hearing that the licensing authorities confronted as they were with the applicant ’s previous conviction and the terms of the relevant domestic legislation could not have reached a different conclusion .

B. Relevant domestic law

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) DATE was amended by regulation CARDINAL of FAC ( Qualifications of Operators ) Regulations ( Northern Ireland ) DATE so as to provide that ORG shall refuse to grant to an applicant an operator ’s licence unless it is satisfied that the applicant is , inter alia , of good repute ( new section CARDINALA ) .

LAW ( GPE ) DATE was further amended by FAC ( Qualifications of Operators ) LAW ( GPE ) DATE . According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG , the ORG shall determine that a person is not of good repute if he has been convicted of serious offences , defined as any offence which carries a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding DATE , a fine exceeding level CARDINAL on the standard scale , or a community service order for TIME . Spent convictions are to be disregarded .

A person who has been refused a licence may apply in writing within DATE from the date of issue of the notice of refusal to ORG stating his grounds of complaint and requiring the decision to be reviewed by ORG . ORG must inform the applicant in writing whether the decision has been confirmed or reversed . ORG must give reasons for the confirmation of a decision ( regulation CARDINAL of ORG ( GPE ) DATE ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a GPE national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in the GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr J. Jahae , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The applicant was placed in pre - trial detention ( voorlopige hechtenis ) on DATE . The criminal proceedings brought against the applicant – in which he stood accused of , inter alia , leading a criminal organisation , importation of QUANTITY of cocaine and possession of ORG , marihuana and weapons – came to an end on DATE , when ORG ( PERSON ) confirmed the judgment handed down by ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE on DATE in which the applicant had been sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant , who had initially been detained in an ordinary remand centre ( huis van bewaring ) , was transferred DATE on the basis of a report from ORG ( PERSON ORG ; “ GRIP / CRI ” ) according to which there were indications that the applicant would seek ways to escape DATE on DATE to ORG ) in a GPE detention facility .

On DATE , on the basis of further GRIP information and the advice of the special selection board of the maximum - security institution ( NORP PERSON ; “ ORG ” ) – the Minister of ORG decided to place the applicant in the pre - trial detention unit in the ORG which is part of the PERSON Penitentiary Complex in FAC . According to this further GRIP information , set out in an official report ( ambtsbericht ) dated DATE , the applicant represented an increased security risk in that in case of an escape , outside aid with use of brute force , violence against persons and a hostage - taking situation could not be excluded . In this connection , it was pointed out that he was a member of a criminal organisation , that various kinds of firearms and hand grenades had been found when members of this organisation had been arrested , that some members – including the applicant ’s right - hand man – were still at large , that the organisation was said to dispose of explosives and heavy arms such as rocket launchers , and that in the course of previous arrests of members of the organisation in GPE , CARDINAL person escaped when the police transport was blocked by a vehicle . It was further pointed out that the authorities of GPE , where the applicant was to serve a CARDINAL years’ prison sentence , had filed a request for his extradition .

The applicant ’s detention in the ORG was reviewed and prolonged by the Minister DATE .

On DATE , the applicant was attacked in the ORG by another detainee who was lethally injured by the applicant in the ensuing fight . Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant which ended on DATE when ORG confirmed the judgment given by the ‘ s - ORG on DATE , in which it had rejected the applicant ’s plea of self - defence , convicted him of manslaughter and imposed a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

By letter of DATE , the applicant was informed that the Minister of ORG had decided to extend his placement in the ORG once again . This decision was based on the contents of the official report of DATE , the possibility of the applicant ’s extradition to GPE where DATE according to the applicant ’s own statement DATE he would still have to serve a CARDINAL years’ prison sentence , and a further official report of DATE , according to which there were plans to liberate the applicant from detention , involving the deployment of a helicopter by a member of the criminal organisation who had escaped on DATE from a GPE detention facility by way of a well prepared escape plan . Further pointing out that the applicant had been sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and that he had been convicted in first instance in another set of criminal proceedings in connection with the death of a co - detainee to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , the Minister considered that it appeared from the above that the applicant ’s escape would give rise to great social upheaval . Since , moreover , the ORG special selection board – having noted the above as well as the grave concern in society and public opinion concerning the crimes committed by the applicant – had advised the Minister to prolong the applicant ’s detention in the ORG , the Minister had taken a decision to this effect .

The applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG ( beroepscommissie ) of ORG ( PERSON GPE ) . In this appeal , he challenged the necessity to prolong his placement in the ORG , arguing inter alia that it had been based on outdated information , that his conduct in the ORG had been correct throughout , that he had not caused the fight with the co - detainee , and that there were no reasons for holding that he would harbour any escape plans . Although he did make a general reference to the findings of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) as regards the ORG regime , he did not present any arguments about the manner in which this regime would have affected him personally . He further did not raise any complaints , either in form or substance , under LAW in relation to his personal conditions of detention in the ORG .

On DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . It noted that the applicant had been sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence for very serious crimes giving rise to grave concern in society and public opinion , and DATE in addition – he had been sentenced in first instance to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment in relation to a fight in the ORG with a fatal outcome . It therefore considered that the applicant , in the event of an escape , would pose an unacceptable risk to society in terms of severe disturbance of public order , the risk of escape being , as such , of lesser importance , i.e. the situation provided for in LAW selection , placement and transfer of detainees ( PERSON , plaatsing en overplaatsing van gedetineerden ) of DATE . ORG further concluded that , having found no facts or circumstances militating against a continuation of the applicant ’s stay in the ORG , the decision to prolong his placement was lawful and that , weighing up all the interests involved , it could not be considered as unreasonable or unjust .

On DATE , the applicant was transferred to a prison with an ordinary regime in GPE .

An overview of the relevant domestic law and practice is given in the ORG ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of PERSON the GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL ) .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE .

He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The applicant considers himself to be part of a NORP ethnic minority in GPE . In DATE he was ordained a priest in ORG . He used to live and work in the northern district of PERSON and during DATE and DATE became increasingly involved in the advocacy of greater cultural rights for NORP . In DATE , he became a monk in the monastery of GPE near GPE . In DATE he was expelled from ORG . He claims that , since DATE , he has been arrested CARDINAL times and prosecuted for a series of offences , in particular that of abusing of his position as a priest .

In DATE the applicant was involved in an incident in his church in the village of Aghios Athanasios . The bishop of the city of PERSON , who arrived at the church to attend the mass celebrated by the applicant , was confronted with CARDINAL persons shouting insults at him and calling for the ORG to support NORP cultural rights . The applicant was accused of disrupting a religious congregation , abusing his position as a priest and disturbing citizen ’s peace .

On DATE , he was tried in absentia ( because he was unable to attend for health reasons ) by ORG and was sentenced to QUANTITY imprisonment for having disrupted a NORP congregation . ORG had previously rejected a request to adjourn the hearing . After having heard CARDINAL witnesses for the prosecution , it found that on DATE , the applicant incited the congregation to violent disorder by saying to them that if the bishop arrived at the church by saying that “ you must make him understand that you do n’t want him to come in and if he does , blood will flow ” . It also found that on DATE , while the bishop had managed to enter the church and had started celebrating the mass , the applicant unplugged the church ’s microphones .

The applicant appealed against this judgment to ORG composed of CARDINAL judges , which heard the case on DATE in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer . CARDINAL witnesses were heard , CARDINAL for the prosecution and CARDINAL for the defence . ORG delivered its judgement on DATE . It found the applicant guilty of disturbing the citizen ’s peace ( LAW ) , of disrupting a religious congregation ( LAW ) and of abusing his position as a priest ( LAW ) ; it upheld the applicant ’s conviction but reduced his prison sentence to DATE and converted it into a pecuniary penalty of MONEY ( GPE ) DATE .

On DATE , the applicant appealed on points of law . He maintained that although he had invited ORG to hear CARDINAL witnesses on his behalf , the president of the ORG refused to hear CARDINAL of them and that this refusal had not been included in TIME of the hearing although the applicant ’s lawyer had invited the ORG to do so . He also alleged that ORG , contravening LAW , had interrupted the taking of evidence and had examined in between some other small cases ; as a result , the applicant had lost the thread of his defence in violation of LAW . He maintained that the judgment of ORG was not reasoned because it had merely reproduced the wording of the indictment and had not specified in what way the accused had actually committed the offences . In addition , he alleged that the members of ORG and ORG lacked impartiality towards him . Finally , he alleged that the fact that ORG refused to call all the witnesses for the defence amounted to a lack of public hearing .

ORG dismissed the appeal on DATE . It noted that the applicant failed to appeal to ORG sitting in full when its president rejected the request to hear CARDINAL witnesses for the defence ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) . It also noted that it did not appear from TIME that any interruption of the taking of evidence had ever occurred during the hearing . It considered that ORG had sufficiently motivated its judgement and held that the plea of impartiality of the judges was not , according to NORP law , a ground for quashing the judgment of ORG .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion to Tunisia);Violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-2;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently being held in ORG in GPE .

In DATE the applicant became an active sympathiser of ORG , an illegal organisation in GPE . In DATE the organisation was renamed ORG . He was arrested and questioned by the police on various occasions . As a result of persecution by NORP security forces , the applicant left GPE in DATE and arrived in GPE , via GPE and GPE . In DATE he went to GPE and in DATE he returned to GPE .

According to the applicant 's submissions , in DATE , when the applicant went to the NORP consulate in GPE , GPE , to renew his passport , he was detained and questioned by NORP officials there . Subsequently , he left GPE and arrived in GPE .

DATE the applicant lived in the province of ORG without a residence permit .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by officers from the ORG Branch of ORG within the context of a police operation conducted against ORG . On DATE he was transferred to the LOC police headquarters . On DATE ORG ordered his pre - trial detention .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG , charging the applicant and CARDINAL others with membership of ORG . As regards the applicant , the public prosecutor noted that he was protected by another suspect , the person who was responsible for the ORG area , and gave LANGUAGE lessons to members of ORG .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits of the case . During the hearing the applicant made statements to the effect that his asylum request had been rejected at DATE and he had been living in GPE for DATE . He further maintained that he had not been involved in the activities of ORG and that he could not return to GPE because he risked ill - treatment and the death penalty in his home country . At the end of the hearing , the court decided to release the applicant pending trial . The court however banned the applicant from leaving the country .

According to the information in the case file , the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first - instance court .

On an unspecified date the applicant reapplied to ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ the ORG ” ) and requested to be recognised as a refugee .

Following his release from pre - trial detention and prior to his placement in a foreigners ' admission and accommodation centre , on DATE the applicant was questioned by CARDINAL police officers at the foreigners ' department of the PERSON police headquarters . According to the document containing his statements , the applicant was informed that a procedure for his deportation had been initiated . He was then asked to make statements as to his application to the ORG . The applicant maintained that his lawyer had contacted the ORG on his behalf and that he had been interviewed by the ORG on DATE . The applicant further contended that he did not wish to be sent to GPE , as he risked the death penalty and ill - treatment in his country of origin .

On DATE the director of the department responsible for foreigners , borders and asylum attached to the ORG requested the PERSON governor 's office to ensure the applicant 's removal from GPE . The applicant could not however be deported , on account of the decision of ORG banning him from leaving GPE .

On DATE the deputy director of the PERSON police headquarters requested ORG to annul its decision banning the applicant from leaving the country . He stated in his letter that the applicant had provoked others in the ORG and had started a protest by not accepting the meals served . The deputy director also noted that the applicant was a person liable to be deported under LAW no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was recognised as a refugee under the ORG mandate .

On DATE the applicant made an official application to ORG for temporary asylum in GPE . He was interviewed by officials from ORG about his request CARDINAL , but has not been informed of the outcome of that interview .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG set aside its decision of DATE .

According to the ORG 's submissions , the procedure for the applicant 's deportation had been re - initiated following the decision of ORG of DATE . However , the procedure was suspended due to the application of the Rule CARDINAL measure . The Government maintained that the applicant had been living in GPE without seeking asylum . He had sought asylum only after it had been decided to remove him from GPE . His request for temporary asylum was rejected since he was a suspected ORG member and therefore his presence in GPE endangered national security and public order .

According to a letter of DATE written by Mr PERSON , one of the founders and the chairman of ORG , the applicant is a member of ORG of GPE and would be at risk of imprisonment and torture if removed to GPE on account of his affiliation with that organisation .

The applicant was placed in the anti - terrorist branch of the PERSON police headquarters following the decision of ORG dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG and ORG , where he is currently being held .

As regards the conditions in which he was kept in the PERSON and GPE facilities , the applicant submitted that in GPE he had been kept in a CARDINAL sq.m cell where there were CARDINAL benches of QUANTITY . He had to call the warders when he needed to go to the toilet . He was given a meal once a day and did not have the right to leave his cell . During his detention in GPE he had no access to his family or his lawyer . He therefore started a hunger strike , as a result of which he was allowed to see his lawyer CARDINAL times .

As to the Kırklareli Foreigners ' Admission and Accommodation Centre , the applicant maintained that he had been held in a CARDINAL sq.m room with CARDINAL other detainees . He was provided with meals CARDINAL times a day . However , the food was of very poor quality . There was no drinkable water and therefore he was obliged to buy mineral water . He also noted that the detainees were not provided with any hygiene or cleaning products and that the warders had an aggressive attitude towards the detainees .

The Government submitted that the applicant was held in satisfactory material conditions in ORG and ORG , where he was accommodated .

A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in the case of GPE and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

A description of the situation of ORG members in GPE can be found in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ... ) .


Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr Z. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the Minister of Industry quashed ab initio a decree of CARDINAL DATE by which the factory owned by the applicant ’s parents had been nationalised . The applicant and his sister recovered the property in DATE . The factory was in a very poor state . As the former occupants refused to make repairs , the applicant and his sister brought proceedings for damages on DATE .

By an interim judgment of DATE , the GPE ORG ( obvodní soud ) decided that the claim of the applicant and his sister was , in respect of the first defendant , well founded .

On DATE ORG adopted a supplementary judgment by which it dismissed the applicant ’s and his sister ’s action in respect of the second defendant .

On DATE the applicant and his sister filed an appeal against the CARDINAL judgments .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgments and sent the case to ORG .

On DATE the applicant informed the court that his sister had died . He proposed to suspend the proceedings on his late sister ’s claim while the court continued to deal with his claim .

On DATE ORG decided to suspend the proceedings until the termination of the inheritance proceedings . The applicant appealed against this decision .

It seems that the proceedings are still pending .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Orehova vas .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was injured at work in a lignite mine . The applicant ’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer and ZT in ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL SIT ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE he made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE none was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert . The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert .

At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s employer and ZT appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) .

On DATE the court allowed the ORG ’s appeal in part , amended the judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for re - examination .

During the re - examination proceedings , DATE and DATE , the applicant made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

DATE and DATE he lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

On DATE the applicant appealed ORG .

On DATE , the second - instance court dismissed his appeal . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .


Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility);Questions of procedure rejected

The purpose of the ORG 's Request - to which is appended the ORG drawn up by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of LAW article CARDINAL ) of the Convention - is to submit the case of ORG to the ORG so that it may decide whether or not the facts of the case disclose that ORG has failed in its obligations under LAW .

As appears from ORG Request and from its FAC , Mr. PERSON alleges in his ORG that there has been a violation of the LAW in his case , by the authorities of GPE , inasmuch as he was detained without trial , DATE and CARDINALth DATE , in a military detention camp situated in the territory of GPE , in pursuance of an Order made by the Minister of ORG under LAW against LAW , DATE . The special powers of arrest and of detention allowed to ORG by this LAW are said to have been brought into force on DATE , by a proclamation made and published by ORG on DATE .

After being declared admissible on DATE , the Request was dealt with by the ORG according to the procedure laid down in LAW and CARDINAL ( article DATE , article CARDINAL ) of the Convention . It proved impossible to secure a friendly settlement , and the Commission therefore drew up the ORG called for by LAW article CARDINAL ) of the LAW . This ORG was adopted by the Commission on DATE , the majority holding that there had been no breach of the Convention on the part of ORG and that no action should be taken on the PERSON 's suit for damages .

After transmitting this ORG to ORG DATE , in accordance with LAW , paragraph CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , of the Convention , the Commission decided at its meeting of DATE , to avail itself of the possibility offered by ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( article DATE , article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , and refer the PERSON case to ORG for final decision .

In support of this step , the Commission recalled in its ORG that an opinion stated by it under LAW article CARDINAL ) of the LAW as to whether or not the facts found disclosed a breach of the LAW would not be conclusive . The ORG pointed out that under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , of the Convention , if a question were not referred to the ORG , it rested with ORG to decide , by a majority of CARDINAL , whether or not there had been a violation of the Convention .

In view of the fundamental importance of the legal problems raised in this case - and particularly of the questions arising in relation to LAW ) of ORG deemed it advisable to refer the case to the ORG , though without qualifying in any way its own opinion on the subject as expressed in the ORG .

At the meeting held on DATE , in accordance with LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of ORG , and in its Memorial of DATE , the ORG stated that , in conformity with Rule CARDINAL of its Rules of Procedure , it had , on CARDINALth DATE - that is , after referring the case to ORG - transmitted the Report to the Applicant , inviting him to submit his observations to the Commission .

In submitting the ORG to ORG pointed out that that document must be kept secret and that the Applicant was not entitled to publish it .

Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission runs as follows :

" When a case brought before the Commission in pursuance of LAW ) of the LAW is subsequently referred to the ORG , the Secretary of the Commission shall immediately notify the Applicant . Unless the Commission shall otherwise decide , the Secretary shall also in due course communicate to him ORG , informing him that he may , within a time - limit fixed by the President , submit to the ORG his written observations on the said ORG . The ORG shall decide what action , if any , shall be taken in respect of these observations . "

In its ORG declared its readiness " to submit to ORG comments upon the ORG as a document relevant in the present proceedings " . However , instead of communicating these comments on its own initiative , the ORG thought appropriate , at this preliminary stage of the procedure , to request the ORG for leave to file the memorandum containing the PERSON 's comments as a document submitted by ORG .

In the pleadings , the following submissions were made in regard to the procedure alone :

by ORG , in its PERSON :

" DATE it please the ORG :

( CARDINAL ) to give leave for the Commission to submit to ORG comments on ORG as one of the ORG 's documents in the case ; and

( CARDINAL ) in general , to give directions as to the right of the ORG to communicate to the ORG the comments of the Applicant in regard to matters arising in the present proceedings " .

by ORG , in their Counter - Memorial :

" DATE it please the ORG :

( CARDINAL ) to decline jurisdiction in the present case unless the ORG satisfies the ORG that DATE and

DATE , the question of reference of the case to ORG was not discussed in any way by the Commission ;

( CARDINAL ) to refuse to entertain the case while the delay on the part of the Commission in transmitting its ORG to ORG and to the Government has not been satisfactorily explained ;

( CARDINAL ) to declare that any publication by ORG other than that expressly authorised by the Convention , is a breach of the obligations imposed on the Commission by the Convention ;

( CARDINAL ) to rule that the comments of the Applicant on the Report of the Commission and the further comments of the Applicant on matters arising in the present proceedings be not received by the ORG :

( a ) because no argument in favour of their admission has been submitted by ORG , and

( b ) because the admission of such comments would be an oblique method of amending the LAW , and

( c ) because such comments have come into existence only through a breach by the Commission of its obligations of secrecy , and

( d ) because in the circumstances of the present proceedings such comments are not material ;

( CARDINAL ) to declare that a correct interpretation of the LAW does not permit of action of the nature contemplated by LAW of the Rules of the Commission " .

At the hearing of DATE , the ORG made the following submissions :

DATE it please the ORG to reject the preliminary objections to the ORG 's jurisdiction formulated in paragraph CARDINAL of ORG .

DATE it please the ORG to decide that the provisions of Rule CARDINAL of ORG and the ORG 's communication of its ORG on the present case to the PERSON fall within the competence conferred upon the ORG by the LAW , and to reject the preliminary objection formulated in paragraph CARDINAL of ORG .

“ DATE it please the ORG :

( a ) to give leave to the ORG to transmit to the ORG the written comments of the PERSON upon the Commission 's Report ;

( b ) to give such directions as the ORG may consider appropriate as to the right of the ORG to communicate to the ORG the comments of the Applicant in regard to matters arising in the present proceedings ;

( c ) to reject the submissions formulated in paragraph CARDINAL of ORG . "

At the hearing of DATE , the Agent of ORG , in view of the explanations furnished by ORG during his oral pleading , withdrew the preliminary objections appearing as ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL in his ORG 's ORG .

The following submissions , relating to the preliminary objections and questions of procedure raised during the present proceedings , were presented by the Agent of ORG at the hearing of CARDINALth DATE :

" DATE it please the ORG :

( CARDINAL ) to declare that any publication by ORG , other than that expressly authorised by the Convention , is a breach of the obligations imposed on the Commission by the Convention ;

( CARDINAL ) to rule that the comments of the Applicant on the Report of the Commission be not received by the ORG ;

( CARDINAL ) to rule that no further comments of the Applicant on matters arising in the present proceedings may be received by the ORG ;

( CARDINAL ) to declare that a correct interpretation of the LAW does not permit of action of the nature contemplated by LAW of the Rules of the Commission . "


Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

At the time of the events giving rise to the application , LOC ( the first applicant ) was registered with ORG as a non - governmental organisation lobbying , inter alia , for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly . In DATE its members decided to discontinue the organisation ’s registration on grounds of alleged pressure and intimidation by the ORG . In particular , they complained of the refusal of ORG to register amendments to the organisation ’s articles of association , the repeated freezing of its bank account , the arbitrary arrest of its members , attempts to shut down its newspaper , among other things . Several of the organisation ’s leaders requested political asylum in western countries . It was decided to continue the organisation ’s activity under the same name but without registering it with the ORG authorities . It was also decided that the new unincorporated association would become the former organisation ’s successor . After removal of the organisation from the ORG ’s list of non - governmental organisations on DATE , PERSON activities continued as before on the basis of its new articles of association . The association continued editing its newspaper , its Internet page and continued staging protests and demonstrations .

The other applicants are members and supporters of LOC : PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON respectively .

On DATE PERSON applied to ORG for authorisation to hold a peaceful meeting in front of ORG on DATE , to protest against the policy of GPE in respect of NORP students . The application was signed by PERSON president and stated , inter alia , that :

“ By the present [ application ] we seek permission from GPE to hold a public gathering on DATE in PERSON .

The members and the supporters of PERSON who study in GPE or who have relatives studying there are not content with the manner in which they are treated by the NORP authorities . Therefore we intend to protest with them and on their behalf in front of ORG , CARDINAL a.m and TIME in front of the entrance on GPE street .

We undertake to respect public order and not to block traffic . ”

On DATE ORG rejected the application on the ground that :

“ The municipal police considered the applicants’ protest to be unfounded and unwelcome because it was the Government of GPE which financed the studies of NORP students in GPE and therefore the NORP authorities were competent to take a decision in respect of the applicants’ application [ of DATE ] ” .

On DATE the first applicant challenged the refusal in court and argued , inter alia , that it was unlawful . It also argued that ORG had protracted the examination of their application until DATE so as not to leave it enough time to challenge the refusal in the courts . It asked that the case be examined urgently . The applicant explained that many persons who had expressed their wish to participate in the demonstration were students in GPE and were at home , in PERSON , only for the DATE break .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicants’ action , finding that ORG had acted within its competence . The court observed that the police , ORG and ORG had obtained information that the applicants intended to breach the provisions of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

Hyde Park appealed against this judgment and argued that the judgment had breached the right of its members to hold peaceful meetings in public places . It also argued that no evidence had been presented to support the view that the holding of the demonstration would have given rise to an infringement of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG upheld the appeal , quashed the judgment of the first - instance court and ordered a re - examination of the case . ORG found that there was no evidence that the applicants intended to breach sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG again dismissed the action on the basis that the holding of a protest meeting in front of ORG could have prejudiced the image of ORG and of the NORP people . Moreover , the decision to hold a protest meeting had not been adopted by the council of FAC , as required by its statutes . Additionally , the LOC statutes did not contain , in its list of activities , provisions sanctioning actions such as holding protest meetings . The first applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law , on the ground that the holding of a demonstration in front of ORG could have prejudiced the image of ORG and of the NORP people .

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE read as follows :

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall be conducted peacefully , without any sort of weapons , and shall ensure the protection of participants and the environment , without impeding the normal use of public highways , road traffic and the operation of economic undertakings and without degenerating into acts of violence capable of endangering the public order and the physical integrity and life of persons or their property .

Assemblies shall be suspended in the following circumstances :

( a ) denial and defamation of the ORG and of the people ;

( b ) incitement to war or aggression and incitement to hatred on ethnic , racial or religious grounds ;

c ) incitement to discrimination , territorial separatism or public violence ;

d ) acts that undermine the constitutional order .

( CARDINAL ) ORG may be conducted in squares , streets , parks and other public places in cities , towns and villages , and also in public buildings .

( CARDINAL ) It shall be forbidden to conduct an assembly in the buildings of the public authorities , the local authorities , ORG offices , the courts or companies with armed security .

( CARDINAL ) It shall be forbidden to conduct assemblies :

( a ) within QUANTITY of the parliament building , the residence of the President of GPE , the seat of the government , ORG and ORG ;

( b ) within QUANTITY of the buildings of the central administrative authority , the local public authorities , courts , ORG offices , police stations , prisons and social rehabilitation institutions , military installations , railway stations , airports , hospitals , companies which use dangerous equipment and machines , and diplomatic institutions .

( CARDINAL ) PERSON access to the premises of the institutions listed in subsection ( CARDINAL ) shall be guaranteed .

( CARDINAL ) The local public authorities may , if the organisers agree , establish places or buildings for permanent assemblies .

( CARDINAL ) Not DATE prior to the date of the assembly , the organiser shall submit a notification to ORG , a specimen of which is set out in the annex which forms an integral part of this LAW .

( CARDINAL ) The prior notification shall indicate :

( a ) the name of the organiser of the assembly and the aim of the assembly ;

( b ) the date , starting time and finishing time of the assembly ;

( c ) the location of the assembly and the access and return routes ;

( d ) the manner in which the assembly is to take place ;

( e ) the approximate number of participants ;

( f ) the persons who are to ensure and answer for the sound conduct of the assembly ;

( g ) the services the organiser of the assembly asks ORG to provide .

( CARDINAL ) If the situation so requires , ORG may alter certain aspects of the prior notification with the agreement of the organiser of the assembly . ”

( CARDINAL ) The prior notification shall be examined by the local government of the town or village at DATE before the date of the assembly .

( CARDINAL ) When the prior notification is considered at an ordinary or extraordinary meeting of ORG , the discussion shall deal with the form , timetable , location and other conditions for the conduct of the assembly and the decision taken shall take account of the specific situation .

( CARDINAL ) The local authorities can reject an application to hold an assembly only if after having consulted the police , it has obtained convincing evidence that the provisions of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL will be breached with serious consequences for society .

( CARDINAL ) A decision rejecting the application for holding an assembly shall be reasoned and presented in writing . It shall contain reasons for refusing to issue the authorisation ...

( CARDINAL ) The organiser of the assembly can challenge the refusal in the administrative courts . ”

On DATE the ORG adopted a new LAW , according to which no authorisation is needed for the holding of demonstrations with CARDINAL participants .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 9;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a NORP .

On DATE , the applicant , together with a group of other NORP , was praying on private LOC , namely in a house rented by a non - governmental organisation whose leader was the applicant . They were dispersed by the police and the applicant was subsequently charged with the offence ( contravenţie administrativă ) of practising a religion which was not recognised by the ORG .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on the basis of LAW and fined him CARDINAL Moldovan lei ( MDL ) . The applicant appealed against this decision and argued , inter alia , that it was contrary to his right to freedom of religion .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal without giving any reasons and without inviting the applicant to attend the hearing .

DATE of LAW , concerning freedom of conscience , provides :

“ CARDINAL . Freedom of conscience is guaranteed . It must be manifested in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect .

Freedom of worship is guaranteed . Religious denominations shall organise themselves according to their own articles of association , in compliance with the law .

Any manifestation of discord is forbidden in relations between religious denominations .

Religious denominations shall be autonomous and separated from the ORG , and shall enjoy the latter ’s support , including facilities granted for the purpose of providing religious assistance in the army , hospitals , prisons , mental institutions and orphanages . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW , as published in ORG no . DATE , read as follows :

“ In order to be able to organise and operate , denominations must be recognised by means of a government decision .

Where a denomination fails to comply with the conditions laid down by the first paragraph of section CARDINAL of the present Act , recognition may be withdrawn under the same procedure . ”

This section was amended in DATE . According to the amendments , in order to be recognised a denomination had to submit to the Government a declaration and a series of documents . After submitting the declaration and the documents , the denomination would be registered within DATE .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW reads as follows :

“ The practising ... of unlawful [ religious ] beliefs or rituals is punishable by a fine in the amount of ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL . ”

On DATE this Code will be replaced by MONEY which contains a similar provision in its LAW .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

The applicant is a GPE citizen born in DATE . He lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in The Hague on suspicion of having committed forgery . He was placed in detention on remand until DATE , on which date ORG ( PERSON ) ordered his release on the ground of a shortage of cells then existing in the GPE .

The applicant was tried by ORG ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE on DATE . On DATE that court sentenced him to DATE imprisonment on CARDINAL counts of forgery . Both ORG and the applicant filed an appeal DATE . The applicant was allowed to remain at liberty pending the appeal .

DATE after the judgment of ORG , on DATE , the applicant travelled to GPE where he stayed for DATE . While there he had a death certificate in his own name issued by the competent NORP authorities ; this document was dated DATE . The applicant ’s death was registered in GPE on DATE .

The applicant returned to the GPE on DATE . On DATE his mother applied to ORG of GPE for a court order to delete the entry of his death from the register . On DATE such a court order was given and the said entry was deleted on DATE .

The appeal against the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was heard by ORG ( Gerechtshof ) of GPE on DATE in the presence of the applicant . On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of only CARDINAL count of forgery and acquitted him of the other ; nevertheless , it increased the sentence to DATE and DATE .

The applicant introduced an appeal on points of law to ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , within the time - limit of DATE prescribed by GPE law , by means of a statement made at the registry of ORG . The registry of ORG transmitted the case file to the registry of ORG , which received it on DATE . The hearing of ORG was set for CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant ’s counsel proposed CARDINAL grounds of appeal . The first argued that since at the time of the hearing of ORG the registration of the applicant ’s death had not yet been deleted , the applicant was not then officially alive and the prosecution should therefore have been held inadmissible . The second was a complaint about violation of Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , in that , firstly , the transmission of the case file by the registry of ORG to ORG had taken excessively long and , secondly , the acts for which the applicant was still being prosecuted had been committed DATE before . Applicant ’s counsel claimed to have inquired often as to the date on which the hearing was to take place .

In accordance with the advisory opinion filed on DATE by the Procurator - General ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal by judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It held , firstly , that the registration of the applicant ’s death did not preclude ORG from allowing the prosecution in view of the applicant ’s presence at the hearing and , secondly , that the lapse of time between the filing of the appeal on points of law and the hearing of ORG was undesirably long but not unreasonably so for the purpose of Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) . ORG further observed , inter alia , that although the applicant ’s counsel had inquired after the date of the hearing , she had not asked for that date to be brought forward .

The applicant served his sentence from DATE until CARDINAL DATE when he was provisionally released .

For a survey of the relevant domestic law and practice , reference is made to the judgment in the case of PERSON v. the GPE of DATE , Series A no . PERSON , pp . CARDINAL , paras . CARDINAL - CARDINAL .