Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 2;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

Mr Kolev was a high - ranking prosecutor . DATE he was Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor of GPE and , thereafter , a prosecutor at ORG and later at ORG .

His wife , PERSON , the second applicant , is a high - ranking prosecutor .

On DATE PERSON was dismissed from his position by decision of ORG , on an application by ORG , PERSON The decision ordered PERSON retirement .

During DATE PERSON dismissal , several other high - ranking prosecutors were dismissed and ordered to take early retirement .

Mr Kolev lodged an appeal before ORG against his dismissal , stating , inter alia , that he had never applied for retirement and that he had not reached retirement age . By a judgment of DATE a chamber of ORG quashed the dismissal as contrary to the law , noting that PERSON had not reached retirement age and that even though he was eligible for early retirement this could only be ordered if requested by the person concerned .

On appeal , that judgment was upheld on DATE by a CARDINAL - member chamber of ORG .

On an unspecified date in DATE PERSON resumed his office as a prosecutor . He started work at ORG .

DATE Mr F. was the Chief Public Prosecutor of GPE .

According to PERSON , the real reason for attempting to force him to retire was a conflict between him and ORG . Mr Kolev allegedly knew ORG very well as they had been in the same class as university students and had worked together for an unspecified period . Observing the behaviour of ORG , PERSON gradually formed the opinion that he was suffering from a psychiatric disorder . Also , a conflict between the CARDINAL allegedly erupted in relation to plans DATE which PERSON resisted DATE to allow public access to the archives of the military intelligence service dating from the communist period . According to PERSON statements , supported by several other public figures , the conflict also arose from the fact that ORG had developed an authoritarian style and had repeatedly ordered other prosecutors to act unlawfully against persons whom ORG perceived as his enemies . In particular , on numerous occasions ORG had ordered his subordinate colleagues to open criminal proceedings against other persons on fabricated charges .

On DATE ORG met PERSON and allegedly ordered him to withdraw his appeal against the dismissal order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , threatening him with arrest and criminal prosecution if he did not comply .

In DATE and DATE PERSON made public his suspicions about the mental health of ORG . In interviews for the press he stated that ORG constantly feared plots , mistrusted his colleagues and regularly ordered unlawful actions to put pressure on persons whom he considered to be against him . He referred to the recent suicide of a high - ranking prosecutor , who had left a note stating that ORG should resign . Also , in DATE ORG had allegedly been very irritated by journalists who had reported that his brother had been arrested in GPE on suspicion of smuggling ancient coins and had ordered a series of criminal investigations and reprisals against the journalists and other persons connected with them . The car of CARDINAL of the journalists had been set on fire soon after the reports had been published . Many persons had been summoned for questioning and various charges brought against some of them .

Mr Kolev also wrote to the President of GPE , informing him of his suspicions concerning the mental health of ORG .

At the relevant time other public figures also voiced the opinion that ORG was suffering from a mental disorder and had committed numerous serious criminal acts . In DATE PERSON , a former member of ORG known for his publications about alleged crimes committed by high - ranking officials , published an open letter to ORG and other institutions , stating that ORG had committed crimes and that he had a mental disorder . CARDINAL of the allegations was that in DATE ORG had murdered PERSON , a lawyer who had allegedly served as an intermediary for the payment of bribes by criminals to prosecutors . Several public figures , including prosecutors , made statements to the press on the matter , some of them supporting the allegations .

The Chief Public Prosecutor and other politicians denied the allegations and stated that they were the victims of a campaign by criminal groups which sought to destabilise the country and hamper pending investigations .

NORP In DATE PERSON initiated proceedings before ORG seeking a declaration that the decision of ORG of DATE to propose that the President of GPE appoint PERSON as Chief Public Prosecutor had been invalid because of procedural irregularities . In DATE the Chief Public Prosecutor requested a ruling from ORG on the question whether ORG proposals to the President were amenable to appeal before ORG . On DATE ORG ruled that those proposals were not amenable to appeal . On DATE the proceedings before ORG were discontinued .

Allegedly in reaction to PERSON public accusations , within a short period several sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against him and members of his family . It appears that prior to these events , PERSON had never been the object of criminal investigations .

On DATE PERSON was charged with illegal possession of weapons , as a handgun and a hand grenade had been found in his former office after his dismissal . The proceedings were terminated by GPE on DATE on the ground that PERSON , who was still a prosecutor as the decision ordering his retirement had not yet entered into force , enjoyed immunity from prosecution .

In DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against PERSON on charges that he had breached the law in connection with an investigation he had conducted in DATE . Those proceedings were terminated by a decision of ORG of DATE .

NORP In DATE criminal proceedings were opened against PERSON father on charges of illegal possession of CARDINAL cartridges for a hunting rifle . PERSON father was later indicted . On DATE he was acquitted . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG the prosecuting authorities were ordered to pay PERSON father nonpecuniary damages for the anxiety caused by his indictment on charges that had proved unfounded .

NORP In DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against PERSON in relation to a telephone conversation of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Those proceedings were terminated by ORG on DATE .

NORP In DATE PERSON was charged with aiding and abetting the murder of PERSON in DATE ( of which others had accused ORG ) . According to the charges , he had provided advice which had facilitated the commission of the offence .

In DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Kolev and his son on charges that DATE Mr Kolev had abused his office to provide his son with a handgun free of charge . Those proceedings were terminated on DATE on the grounds that PERSON had died and that it could not be considered that his son had acted wilfully .

On DATE PERSON wrote to the Minister of the ORG and also gave interviews to the press in which he stated that he had learned that ORG had ordered the fabrication of criminal charges against him , which would consist of drugs being “ planted ” on him with the aim of having him arrested on drug charges and silencing him . This information was published widely . On DATE Mr Kolev telephoned a former colleague and told him not to participate in this planned operation . In connection with that conversation , in DATE PERSON was charged with having attempted to put undue pressure on an official ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Mr Kolev repeated his accusations in a complaint he sent to ORG on DATE . He gave details , indicating the names of several persons who were allegedly involved in the plot and insisted , as he had done in previous complaints , that ORG should appoint a commission to investigate the crimes allegedly committed by ORG .

On DATE PERSON was arrested in PERSON in front of his home by officers of the anti - terrorist squad accompanied by PERSON and PERSON Ts . I. , CARDINAL high - ranking prosecutors . Immediately after the arrest Mr ORG 's flat and a vehicle belonging to ORG son were searched . According to the record drawn up on that occasion and the charges brought later , several paper envelopes containing QUANTITY of heroin and QUANTITY of cocaine were found in PERSON pockets and in the car . The authorities seized a handgun lawfully owned by PERSON wife , and other belongings . A handgun and CARDINAL cartridges were found in PERSON son 's car , according to the official record . The searches and seizures were approved DATE by a judge at ORG .

On DATE a prosecutor ordered PERSON provisional detention for a period of TIME , relying on Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On the expiry of the CARDINAL-hour period , on DATE another prosecutor issued a fresh order for PERSON provisional detention for another period of TIME , without mentioning the order of DATE . The new order was based on LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE PERSON was charged with illegal possession of drugs and a firearm .

On DATE a lawyer acting for ORG protested against his detention in a complaint filed with ORG .

On DATE PERSON was brought before a judge at ORG .

The prosecutor asked the court to order PERSON pre - trial detention . PERSON and his lawyer stated that the detention was unlawful and was the result of a plot . PERSON stated that he had seen prosecutors PERSON and PERSON . I. , who had been present during his arrest , placing CARDINAL small paper packets among his belongings . Shortly after that the same persons had placed , in PERSON presence , a handgun in his son 's car . PERSON requested a fingerprint test , stating that such a test would prove his allegations .

Mr Kolev also invoked immunity from prosecution on the strength of the fact that he was still a prosecutor . He also complained that he had been detained unlawfully after the expiry on DATE of the CARDINAL statutory period .

The Sofia City Court remanded PERSON in custody . The court found that the record drawn up during the arrest , which showed that drugs and a handgun had been found , was sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable suspicion that PERSON had committed a serious offence . It also noted that several sets of criminal proceedings were pending against him ( see paragraphs DATE above ) , which pointed to a danger of him committing an offence . The court considered that PERSON did not have immunity from prosecution following his dismissal .

The court refused to rule on the lawfulness of PERSON detention during the period before DATE , stating that it was not subject to judicial control and that its lawfulness had no bearing on the issue to be decided by the court , namely whether or not to remand PERSON in custody .

On DATE PERSON lawyer submitted a complaint to ORG stating that on DATE Mr Ts . I. , a highranking prosecutor , had told him that he risked having criminal charges brought against him if he persisted in defending PERSON . DATE , the lawyer had been asked to appear before a prosecutor and “ furnish explanations ” in relation to a case he had worked on in DATE as investigator . The lawyer stated that inadmissible pressure had been brought to bear on him and requested an investigation .

On DATE ORG dismissed a consequent appeal by PERSON . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL judges gave a dissenting opinion .

The majority stated that the court had no power to deal with Mr Kolev 's allegations that the drugs and firearm found during his arrest had been “ planted ” by prosecutors , as that was a question which concerned the merits of the criminal case and could not be discussed in relation to Mr Kolev 's detention .

The dissenting judge stated that PERSON enjoyed immunity from prosecution and that in any event , having regard to all the available information , PERSON detention had not been justified .

On DATE PERSON submitted a fresh appeal against his continuing pre - trial detention . In accordance with the relevant procedural requirements , the appeal was lodged with ORG , which was in charge of the investigation against him . On DATE Mr Kolev and his lawyers complained , in submissions to ORG and ORG , of the delay in the examination of the appeal , which should have been transmitted to GPE . As the appeal was not transmitted , on DATE PERSON lodged an appeal directly with ORG . The court heard the case on DATE and decided to release the applicant from custody and place him instead under house arrest .

On an unspecified date an indictment was submitted to ORG against PERSON on charges of illegal possession of drugs and a firearm .

On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings before it and referred the case back to the prosecuting authorities . The court noted that PERSON enjoyed immunity from prosecution , his dismissal not having entered into force .

On DATE , on an appeal by PERSON against his house arrest , ORG ordered his release .

On DATE , following a final judgment of DATE quashing the order for PERSON dismissal from his position as a prosecutor ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , ORG terminated the criminal proceedings against him as he enjoyed immunity from prosecution . That decision was upheld on DATE by ORG .

The courts found that the criminal proceedings against PERSON had been inadmissible from the outset . Pending examination of his appeal against his dismissal , the immunity conferred on him by the LAW had not been removed . In such cases criminal proceedings could be brought and pre - trial detention ordered only if ORG had given its authorisation . That had not been done in PERSON case .

Another set of criminal proceedings against PERSON was terminated by the courts on DATE on the same grounds .

In DATE ORG agreed to deal with the public allegations against ORG submitted by PERSON ORG , a former member of ORG .

On an unspecified date PERSON requested leave to appear and speak before ORG about the alleged unlawful activities of ORG . The request was refused .

On DATE , DATE and DATE ORG heard several statements and examined documentary material . ORG was also invited to speak , but he did not attend .

Mr PERSON , the Head of ORG , testified that in DATE PERSON , ORG , and another high - ranking prosecutor , Mr. PERSON . I. , had given instructions that a cargo aeroplane loaded with military equipment be allowed to leave GPE despite suspicions that the shipment violated a ORG - imposed arms embargo . Mr F. had personally explained in private to Mr A.A. that he had intervened at the request of the President of GPE , PERSON , as the latter 's son was co - owner of the company to which the aircraft belonged . Mr PERSON had refused to approve the actions of the prosecutors and had informed the President of GPE and the Minister of the Interior . Since these events , CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings had been opened against Mr PERSON by prosecutors .

Mr ORG , a former Interior Minister , testified that Mr F. had threatened him with bringing criminal proceedings against him . In DATE he had been summoned to appear before high - ranking prosecutors and questioned about the purchase of several cars by ORG . Mr ORG also testified that while he was Minister of the ORG , numerous sets of criminal proceedings had been opened on dubious grounds against ORG officials working with him , including his press officer .

Mr V.M. , a prosecutor from ORG , stated that he had been the victim of intimidation and threats ordered by Mr F. , ORG . He stated that PERSON had created a climate of fear and submission in the prosecution service . ORG subordinates had become the usual method of management and unconditional submission to ORG was the most valued quality of a subordinate prosecutor or staff member . PERSON and his small circle of trusted individuals ruled the prosecution service . There was a practice of giving unlawful orders orally , with which prosecutors and staff were required to comply . Refusal was punished by arbitrary transfers of prosecutors to other functions and towns and the bringing of criminal charges against members of their families . PERSON cited examples in this respect . PERSON also spoke about specific cases of unlawful termination of criminal proceedings and unlawful intervention by high - ranking prosecutors in private disputes .

PERSON , a prosecutor from ORG , testified that she and several of her colleagues had been improperly prevented from working on a case involving a substantial financial interest . She complained to ORG , whereupon she was summoned to furnish explanations before the Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor , PERSON , and CARDINAL other highranking prosecutors , and was told to withdraw her complaint . Having heard her refusal , the Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor said : “ A second case of a prosecutor committing suicide may occur ” , apparently referring to the suicide , DATE , of a high - ranking prosecutor . After this meeting , disciplinary proceedings were instituted against PERSON and she was deprived of salary bonuses . Following appeals by PERSON , these measures were set aside by the courts .

Mr I.I. , an investigator , testified that he had investigated the murder of PERSON , a lawyer from GPE , who had had a close relationship with ORG . In this context , PERSON discovered evidence of criminal acts committed by prosecutors . His efforts to secure evidence and investigate were frustrated , however , apparently as a result of repeated information leaks . Since the only persons who knew about the planned searches and seizures had been the Chief Public Prosecutor and CARDINAL highranking prosecutors from his close circle , the leak must have come from them . ORG personally supervised the course of the investigation despite his close relationship with the victim . Also , PERSON discovered that QUANTITY persons probably implicated in the murder had fled the country with the help of ORG . As “ punishment ” for his probing into these facts , PERSON was later unlawfully ordered to retire .

ORG heard evidence from other prosecutors who also testified about an atmosphere of fear and submission in the prosecution service , unlawful oral orders issued by high - ranking prosecutors and repression against dissenters in the form of deprivation of salary bonuses , transfers and threats .

CARDINAL other persons who gave evidence to ORG did not share these views .

Following heated debates , during which divergent views were expressed by members of the ORG , on DATE it adopted a decision in which it stated , inter alia , that ORG had introduced an authoritarian style and unlawfully “ punished ” prosecutors by transferring them or depriving them of salary bonuses , and that an atmosphere of fear was paralysing the normal functioning of the prosecution system . On the basis of these and other findings concerning specific violations of the administrative rules , the ORG called on PERSON to resign . ORG adopted the decision by CARDINAL votes to QUANTITY with one abstention . The decision was not legally binding , as at the relevant time the constitutional grounds for termination of ORG appointment were very limited ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . Mr F. refused to resign .

In his application to the ORG , dated DATE , PERSON complained under LAW about his detention DATE . He stated that the violations of his rights were the result of a merciless campaign against him orchestrated by ORG and that he had fears for his and his family 's safety .

Mr Kolev repeatedly voiced in public and in letters to ORG institutions his fear that he might be eliminated physically .

On DATE in the TIME PERSON was shot dead by an unknown assailant in front of his home in GPE .

The police were alerted immediately by passers - by . Several police officers and an investigator from ORG arrived at the scene , searched the area for TIME and interviewed passers - by .

At the scene the police found and collected bullets and cartridges , a revolver and a hand grenade which had not exploded .

The Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor , the Interior Ministry Secretary and other high - ranking officials visited the scene the same evening .

DATE . On DATE an investigator from ORG opened an investigation into the murder of PERSON .

On DATE the police and another investigator from ORG searched the area again in daylight .

On DATE the case was entrusted to an investigator from ORG . On DATE the investigator ordered ballistic and other expert reports and an autopsy .

The autopsy carried out on DATE revealed that PERSON had received QUANTITY shots , some of them in the head .

On DATE the investigator interviewed CARDINAL persons who had been in the area at the time of the murder . Some of them had noticed CARDINAL men shortly before the shooting , but had not seen their faces .

On DATE the Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor appointed prosecutor PERSON , ORG at ORG , to supervise the investigation in the case . The case was registered as under “ special supervision ” by that office .

On DATE a senior officer of the national anti - terrorist squad , Mr GPE , was shot and killed by an unknown assailant . In statements they made later , the second applicant and other persons stated that his murder was probably connected with PERSON murder , since Mr V.D. had allegedly possessed information about PERSON murderer .

On DATE Mr ORG , a former member of ORG who had previously accused ORG of committing crimes , appeared before the investigator as he wished to help with the murder investigation . He had met PERSON many times as both of them had been interested in investigating the crimes allegedly committed by ORG . Their last meeting had been on DATE .

DATE . Mr ORG passed to the investigator information he had obtained from Mr Kolev , with several supporting documents . In particular , he stated that at their last meeting PERSON had spoken about his findings implicating ORG in the murder of the lawyer PERSON in DATE . PERSON had promised to put PERSON in contact with a fugitive who had been falsely charged with that murder .

Mr ORG also stated that PERSON , who had engaged for a certain period in unlawful activities ordered by ORG , had later refused to continue and had started collecting evidence about those activities . Owing to his mental disorder the Chief Public Prosecutor constantly feared plots and considered as his enemy anyone who criticised him or did not execute his orders . Thus , PERSON had been asked to open criminal proceedings on fabricated charges against persons ORG considered his enemies , or even to commit murder . Among those “ enemies ” had been PERSON , a prosecutor at ORG and a former candidate for the post of ORG , as well as journalists who had revealed that the brother of ORG had been charged in GPE with illegal trading in coins . PERSON had told PERSON that a number of high - ranking prosecutors at ORG and other persons spent their time organising “ revenge ” against the “ enemies ” . PERSON had named PERSON , an officer of the national anti - terrorist squad , as one of ORG “ confidants ” . Mr PERSON had blackmailed a banker , Mr GPE . , and had managed to obtain large amounts of money from him . The banker had finally complained but “ in response ” had been arrested on fabricated charges and later a bomb had been found in his flat . Mr ORG submitted to the investigator a copy of a written statement made by the banker in DATE .

Mr ORG described in detail several more cases of alleged crimes committed by Mr GPE and ORG , about which he had learned from PERSON . He gave the names of the persons involved .

Mr ORG also gave the name of an investigator who had told him that he had been threatened by ORG and who had allegedly witnessed the latter 's fits of insane rage . The investigator had also learned that electronic files from the hard drive of the computer found in the office of PERSON , the lawyer murdered in DATE , had been deleted in the course of the investigation because they had contained information implicating prosecutors .

Mr GPE affirmed that PERSON had told him that he feared for his life and considered that ORG had instructed PERSON to have him killed .

On DATE , a former trade union leader , Mr P.S. , who had been charged with criminal offences on allegedly fabricated grounds , made public statements and also wrote to the investigation authorities . He stated , inter alia , that he had had numerous conversations with PERSON , the last one having been on DATE of his murder . PERSON had told him about his efforts to collect information incriminating ORG . Mr P.S. suggested that the records of those conversations could be found , as he was convinced that his and PERSON telephones had been tapped .

On DATE the second applicant , PERSON wife , a prosecutor from ORG , made a public statement addressed to ORG . A copy was also sent to the investigator in the case . She accused PERSON , ORG , of having ordered her husband 's murder , together with Mr GPE and Mr GPE of the national anti - terrorist squad . In her view , ORG was suffering from a mental disorder . Her late husband had refused to engage in unlawful acts ordered by ORG and had revealed the latter 's mental problems publicly , which had triggered a merciless campaign against him . PERSON had been arrested on fabricated charges and several sets of criminal proceedings had been brought in DATE and DATE against him and his family members .

The second applicant called on ORG to initiate proceedings for the removal of ORG from office and to entrust the investigation of PERSON murder to independent prosecutors . That was vitally necessary in her view , having regard to the hierarchical structure of the prosecution system , which allowed total control by ORG , and the atmosphere of fear which reigned among prosecutors and investigators .

On DATE prosecutor PERSON appointed a team of CARDINAL investigators to work on the case . CARDINAL of them were from ORG and the other CARDINAL from ORG .

In DATE the experts appointed by the investigator submitted their reports , describing in detail their findings and conclusions . In particular , the shots that had killed PERSON had been fired at very close range , CARDINAL . The bullets found in his body and at the scene had all been fired from the same weapon , a CARDINAL PERSON calibre handgun . Comparison with data kept by the police had not linked the bullets with a weapon previously used to commit another criminal offence . The revolver found next to PERSON body had a different calibre . It could not be linked to information about weapons used in criminal offences . The experts did not find traces of powder on PERSON fingers or hand . The expert who analysed the hand grenade noted that it was of a type used in the army and the police and also considered that it had been placed next to the body . It was further established that the hair taken from the victim 's clothes was Mr Kolev 's hair .

On DATE the second applicant , PERSON wife , appeared before the investigator but refused to answer his questions and challenged the independence of the investigation .

In DATE the investigator searched PERSON office .

At DATE the investigator interviewed persons who had seen PERSON on DATE and also obtained from the police information about telephone calls made from or received by Mr ORG 's home telephone on DATE of the murder . The calls were traced and the persons who had received them or made them interviewed . CARDINAL of the calls had been made from a mobile telephone whose number was no longer valid and whose holder could not be identified .

On the basis of witness statements it was established that on TIME of DATE PERSON had left his home intending to buy food in a nearby shop . He had been shot on his way back from the shop .

In DATE the investigators questioned a man serving a prison term who had allegedly told other persons that he had bribed PERSON in order to obtain release from prison . The man denied having said or done so . Also in DATE , a man who walked into a police station and confessed to the murder of PERSON was detained , but released shortly after it was established that he suffered from a mental disorder .

In DATE and DATE several persons who had been passing in the area at the time of the murder were questioned for a second time . The police officer who had arrived first at the scene was also questioned . A politician whose telephone number had been dialled from PERSON home on DATE of the murder was also questioned .

NORP The investigator also questioned a journalist who had known Mr Kolev . The journalist stated that PERSON had shared his fears with him , stating that PERSON , ORG , and CARDINAL senior officers of the national anti - terrorist squad – Mr GPE and Mr GPE – wanted to liquidate him . The journalist further stated that PERSON , ORG , suffered from a mental disorder and that guards from ORG and the GPE chief of police could testify to that .

In DATE the investigators questioned another journalist , who had published a book based on conversations with the notorious boss of a criminal gang , Mr PERSON According to the journalist , Mr PERSON had told her that Mr Kolev had worked for another criminal gang . In DATE the CARDINAL gangs had clashed over a consignment of illegally imported cigarettes and PERSON had tried to use his position to have Mr PERSON moved to another detention facility , allegedly intending to use the opportunity to have him killed . The transfer had been prevented by CARDINAL investigators of ORG .

On DATE the investigator reported that it had not been possible to identify the perpetrator , and proposed that the proceedings be stayed . He transmitted the file to Mr Ts . I. from ORG since the case was under “ special supervision ” by that office . The file was then transmitted to ORG , which decided on DATE to stay the proceedings .

Mr Kolev 's relatives , including the second applicant , appealed .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision to stay the proceedings and instructed the prosecuting authorities to take additional measures . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . The courts found that the investigation had not taken all the measures that could lead to identifying the perpetrator . In particular , PERSON wife , the second applicant , had not been questioned . Having regard to her statement addressed to ORG , it was important to question her and then carry out further investigative measures to verify her allegations . In addition , the investigator had not attempted to establish whether there might be a link between PERSON murder and persons affected by high - profile cases he had worked on . The courts also noted that contrary to the relevant procedural rules , the case file did not contain information about any efforts on the part of the investigator to continue his inquiry after the proceedings had been stayed and report periodically . The courts also considered that ballistic and other experts should try to establish further details .

On DATE ORG instructed the investigator to undertake further investigations .

On DATE the second and third applicants were questioned . They stated that they would not testify in the absence of their lawyer . The second applicant was summoned again and appeared on DATE but refused to discuss the case , stating that the case should be investigated independently by ORG .

In DATE the experts appointed to clarify details about the shooting submitted their report .

The investigator also requested and received from ORG a list of cases of “ public interest ” on which PERSON had worked after his reinstatement in DATE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended by a decision of ORG on the ground that it had proved impossible to identify the perpetrator .

The applicants appealed . They stated , inter alia , that the investigation was fully under the control of ORG and gave the authorities ' failure to secure the independence of the investigation as their reason for refusing to testify .

By decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG quashed the order staying the investigation and instructed the prosecuting authorities to undertake further investigations .

The courts stated that the applicants were not entitled to refuse to testify , regardless of their fears that the investigation was not independent . Therefore , the applicants should be summoned again and questioned . The applicants ' request for PERSON , ORG , and several highranking prosecutors to be questioned should be considered afterwards . The courts also instructed the investigation authorities to collect information about cases that PERSON had handled at ORG , where he had worked earlier in his career .

In so far as the applicants had insisted that the investigation should be handled by ORG , which in their view was more independent , the courts stated that that request was inadmissible . The choice of investigators was at the discretion of the prosecutor supervising the case . The courts lacked the power to control that choice or to examine the applicant 's allegations , namely that the investigation was not independent owing to the hierarchical structure of the prosecution system and the personal involvement of ORG in the case .

The second applicant was questioned on DATE . She made the same statements as those contained in her open letter of DATE to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She stated her conviction that her husband had been killed because he had known too much about ORG and had been working to secure his removal from office . Following the appointment of PERSON as Chief Public Prosecutor , PERSON had initially obeyed some of his unlawful orders , such as to put pressure on PERSON , a prosecutor from ORG . However , at some point PERSON had asked PERSON to kill PERSON and he had refused . He had later refused to obey other orders and had thus become an “ enemy ” in PERSON eyes . ORG had first tried to intimidate him and silence him through dismissal and fabricated criminal charges and had later decided to eliminate him physically .

PERSON also stated that she had herself witnessed the atmosphere of fear and paranoia created by ORG among her colleagues . She insisted that all high - ranking prosecutors should be questioned , including ORG . She also requested the questioning of PERSON , the head of the national anti - terrorist squad .

PERSON also stated that the murder , DATE after PERSON death , of Mr V.D. , a senior officer at the national anti - terrorist squad with whom PERSON had been in contact in the context of his private inquiry , had not been a coincidence . PERSON also noted that Mr Ts . NORP and PERSON , the prosecutors who had participated in planting drugs and arresting PERSON Kolev on fabricated charges in DATE , had been promoted soon thereafter and that the arrest had been effected by officers of the national anti - terrorist squad loyal to ORG .

In DATE the investigator questioned QUANTITY persons who had been PERSON lawyers . CARDINAL of them , the former Chief Public Prosecutor , Mr I.T. , assessed as absurd the suggestion that PERSON , ORG , had been responsible for PERSON death .

In DATE the investigator questioned PERSON son , who confirmed his mother 's views . He also stated that his father had received threats by telephone . He stated that the investigation should look for a link between his father 's murder and the murder , committed DATE after that , of Mr V.D. of the anti - terrorist squad .

In DATE the investigator also questioned PERSON , a prosecutor from ORG and a former candidate for the post of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He described in detail events dating from DATE , when PERSON had asked him to resign and threatened him with proceedings , allegedly on the instructions of ORG . PERSON had refused , whereupon he had been transferred to a small town by order of ORG . PERSON complaint against the transfer , examined by ORG in DATE , had been widely publicised . Shortly after that , on DATE , his wife 's notary office had been set on fire . On DATE a bomb had exploded in the same office . Mr V.M. considered that those attacks had been part of ORG campaign against him . PERSON stated that later , in DATE , PERSON had contacted him and spoken openly about his conflict with ORG . He had shared his fears , telling him that Mr GPE of the anti - terrorist squad was probably organising an attempt on his life .

NORP In DATE the investigator questioned another prosecutor , who stated that he knew PERSON only vaguely .

On DATE ORG ordered the investigation to be stayed on the grounds that the identity of the perpetrator could not be established .

NORP In DATE the DATE term of PERSON as Chief Public Prosecutor expired .

On DATE and DATE , the second and third applicants , Mr Kolev 's wife and son , were questioned again . They reiterated the facts on the basis of which they believed that PERSON , ORG , and persons close to him , such as Mr GPE and Mr GPE of the national anti - terrorist squad , had been involved in PERSON murder . They also gave further details about criminal acts allegedly committed by the former Chief Public Prosecutor .

NORP On unspecified dates after DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON and Mr GPE of the national anti - terrorist squad . They also questioned CARDINAL other officers of the same service who had participated in Mr Kolev 's arrest on DATE . The investigators also received information from the GPE police that Mr PERSON , CARDINAL of those CARDINAL officers of the national anti - terrorist squad , had been named as the murderer by a “ voluntary informant ” who had refused , however , to disclose his name and would not testify , even as a protected witness . On DATE a prosecutor of ORG ordered the suspension of the investigation , considering that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges in relation to PERSON murder .

Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( “ ORG DATE ” ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that a suspect might be held in custody without official charges for TIME by a decision of a prosecutor .

Article CARDINALa of the ORG DATE provided that a person officially charged with having committed a criminal offence might be detained provisionally for TIME by a decision of a prosecutor . Within that time - limit the accused person had to be brought before a court .

There is no reported domestic case - law on the question whether or not the CARDINAL detention periods under LAW and ORG may be consecutive .

Under Article CARDINALb of the CCP CARDINAL , as in force at the relevant time , appeals against remand in custody must be submitted to the relevant investigator or prosecutor , who is under a duty to transmit them to the competent court “ immediately ” . The court must hold an oral hearing in the matter within DATE of receipt of the appeal .

Until DATE , all judicial officers , including prosecutors , enjoyed immunity from prosecution . According to LAW , as in force until DATE , read in conjunction with its LAW , criminal proceedings against prosecutors could only be instituted if their immunity had been lifted by decision of ORG . LAW DATE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) provided that the power to make proposals to ORG for the lifting of a judicial officer 's immunity was vested in ORG .

NORP Since immunity could only be lifted on a proposal by ORG , which meant that it was not possible to lift the immunity of ORG against his will , in DATE ORG amended LAW DATE empowering the Presidents of the Supreme Court of Cassation and ORG and the Minister of ORG to submit to ORG proposals to lift the immunity of any judicial officer . On DATE the ORG struck down the amendment finding that it violated LAW , which vested in the prosecuting authorities the exclusive power to bring charges and maintain the accusation against suspected offenders ( реш. № CARDINAL по PERSON № DATE ) .

In DATE ORG adopted another amendment aimed at remedying the deficiency in the law . During the debates on the amendment , several members of ORG considered that it was unconstitutional in view of the DATE judgment of ORG and expressed the view that the deficiency had its origins in the text of the LAW and that it could only be remedied by amending LAW . ORG nevertheless adopted a text according to which CARDINAL of the members of ORG could propose to ORG that the immunity of any judicial officer be lifted .

On DATE ORG set aside the amendment ( реш. № CARDINAL по PERSON № CARDINAL ) referring to the reasons given in its DATE judgment . ORG did not comment on the question whether the resulting impossibility of lifting the immunity of ORG was compatible with the constitutional principle of legality and the fundamental rights protected by LAW .

The deficiency was remedied with effect from DATE when ORG amended the LAW , introducing , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , the possibility for CARDINAL of the members of ORG to seek a decision by that ORG authorising the bringing of charges and the detention of any judicial officer . Furthermore , Article CARDINAL of the LAW as amended no longer used the term “ immunity ” and limited the number of cases in which the authorisation of ORG was needed . According to the amended text , such prior authorisation was only necessary for the bringing of charges against judges and prosecutors where the charges concerned criminal offences allegedly committed by them in the exercise of their functions . Such authorisation was also necessary for detention orders against judges and prosecutors , regardless of the nature of the charges underlying the detention request . LAW was amended with effect from DATE to reflect these new constitutional provisions .

Following the above - mentioned amendments , in theory any prosecutor or investigator could bring charges against ORG without prior authorisation in respect of a criminal offence unrelated to the exercise of the latter 's functions . However , ORG could set aside any such decision taken by a subordinate prosecutor or investigator . Also , ORG authorisation remained necessary for ORG to be remanded in custody .

By further amendment of the LAW in DATE all the procedural limitations specific to criminal proceedings against judicial officers were abolished . The new LAW DATE reflects this amendment in its provisions . Since DATE , in theory any prosecutor or investigator has the power , without prior authorisation , to bring charges against ORG or request the relevant court to order his pre - trial detention where there is sufficient information that he may have committed a criminal offence . As mentioned above , however , ORG may set aside any such decision taken by a subordinate prosecutor or investigator .

NORP Under LAW , all prosecutors have the status of judicial officers ( магистрати ) and are thus part of the judicial system . After DATE of service they obtain tenure . Appointment and dismissal of judicial officers is only possible if decided upon by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . ORG , who is also a judicial officer , is appointed by the President of GPE on a proposal by ORG for CARDINAL non - renewable DATE term of office . Before the expiry of his term of office , the same grounds for dismissal apply as for all other judicial officers . He can be dismissed by the President of GPE on a proposal by ORG .

Under LAW , as in force until DATE , judicial officers with tenure , including prosecutors , could only be dismissed upon retirement , in cases of permanent physical incapacity or where they had been sentenced to deprivation of liberty following a final conviction on charges concerning a wilfully committed offence .

Since DATE , when the LAW was amended , dismissal is also possible on grounds of “ a serious breach of , or systematic non - compliance with , the judicial officer 's duties ” and in cases of “ acts harming the stature of the judiciary ” . In DATE Parliament adopted an amendment to the LAW according to which not only ORG but also CARDINAL of the members of ORG could propose to the President to dismiss ORG or ORG on the grounds mentioned above . On DATE the Constitutional Court struck down the amendment ruling that it purported to change the balance between the branches of power , whereas the LAW required that such changes should be adopted by ORG . Several dissenting justices considered that the amendment was indispensable as the existing legal regime did not offer sufficient safeguards against unlawful acts committed by high - ranking prosecutors or judges . In her dissenting opinion , one of the justices noted the following :

“ Having regard to the fact that ORG includes members who are subordinate to the [ Chief Public Prosecutor and the Presidents of the CARDINAL ORG ] or are in friendly relations with them , it is very likely that ORG would not be able to form a majority in favour of the dismissal of those CARDINAL high - ranking judicial officers ... despite breaches of the law committed by them ...

Prior to [ the impugned constitutional amendment ] the domestic legal order was helpless in such situations and the unlawful behaviour of judicial officers had to be endured over long periods .

Tolerating lack of control and unaccountability is contrary to the spirit of LAW . [ Unfortunately ] , as a consequence of [ the majority 's decision in the case under examination ] the control over the activities of high - ranking judicial officers will remain ineffective , since it is exercised by themselves and their subordinates . ”

Under LAW DATE ( section CARDINAL ) and LAW DATE ( section CARDINAL ) , ORG has the power to remove temporarily from office any judicial officer against whom criminal charges have been brought .

The prosecution system in GPE is centralised . All prosecutors are under the authority of and report to ORG ( section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , in force until DATE , and section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) .

The Chief Public Prosecutor , as the highest prosecutor in the hierarchy , has the power to issue binding orders concerning the work of every prosecutor , including work on particular cases , or to take over a case handled by another prosecutor ( section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , in force until DATE , and sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) .

The Chief Public Prosecutor has the power to submit to ORG proposals for the promotion , dismissal or disciplinary punishment of prosecutors ( sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW DATE , in force until DATE , and section CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) .

Under the CCP DATE , in force until DATE , the prosecutor controlled the investigation ( LAW ) of the CCP CARDINAL ) . This included the power to give specific instructions , overrule the investigator or take over the entire investigation ( LAW ) . The CCP DATE reinforced the prosecutors ' control and direct participation in the investigation of criminal offences . Furthermore , as a result of constitutional and legislative amendments of DATE , DATE and DATE , the investigation service was integrated into the prosecution system and is now administratively subordinate to ORG ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and sections CARDINAL , MONEY of LAW DATE ) . In DATE ORG rejected a motion to declare unconstitutional the DATE amendments to LAW which provided for such subordination .

ORG has CARDINAL members . The Presidents of ORG and of ORG and ORG are members ex officio . ORG elects CARDINAL members , among whom there may be judges , prosecutors , investigators and lawyers . The remaining CARDINAL members are elected at separate delegates ' assemblies of judges ( electing CARDINAL members ) , prosecutors ( electing CARDINAL members ) and investigators ( electing CARDINAL member ) ( Article CARDINAL of the LAW , sections CARDINAL of LAW DATE , in force until DATE and sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) .

Decisions concerning , inter alia , the dismissal of a judicial officer or a proposal to the President of GPE to dismiss ORG must be taken by the members of ORG by secret ballot . Until DATE , when LAW was amended , that was not the case in respect of decisions concerning the lifting of judicial officers ' immunity from prosecution , which were taken by an open voting procedure . DATE and DATE those decisions had to be taken by secret ballot as well . Since DATE ORG authorisation is no longer necessary for the bringing of charges of any kind against a judicial officer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The following paragraphs describe the relevant aspects of several member GPE ' legal systems , with the emphasis on the guarantees that exist to secure the effective and independent investigation of cases involving suspicion against high - ranking prosecutors . The report was prepared on the basis of an overview of the legal systems of GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the former GPE and GPE .

As regards the status of high - ranking prosecutors , in many jurisdictions they are part of the executive branch of the government , within which they enjoy functional independence . In a few countries , such as GPE and GPE , they are considered as part of the judiciary .

NORP In CARDINAL countries special permission is required for the institution of criminal proceeding against ORG . These are GPE ( from ORG ) , GPE ( from a panel of CARDINAL ORG judges on a proposal by the President of GPE ) and GPE ( from ORG and Police ) . In GPE , authorisation can only be refused if the proceedings concern petty offences and it is estimated that a disciplinary sanction would be sufficient . The decision not to grant authorisation is subject to appeal before ORG .

In all other countries there are no such specific procedural obstacles to bringing charges against the highest - ranking prosecutors .

The prosecution systems of the countries surveyed are structured hierarchically with higher - ranking prosecutors having the power to give orders and instructions to the lower - ranking prosecutors . Despite this structure , a number of safeguards are in place in the legal systems of member GPE to ensure the effectiveness and independence of the organs in charge of criminal investigations in respect of high - ranking prosecutors . These safeguards include :

– transfer of the case to another entity within or outside the prosecution system ;

– special investigation procedure in cases involving suspicion against high - ranking prosecutors ;

– suspension of the prosecutor under suspicion from his duties ( in the case of the highest - ranking prosecutor this decision would be made by the political bodies in charge of his appointment ) ; and

– general safeguards such as guarantees ensuring functional independence of prosecutors from their hierarchy and judicial control of the acts of the prosecution service .

NORP In particular , in GPE , a special unit within the prosecution system , the national police - related crimes unit , handles the investigation and subsequent indictment of prosecutors and police officers . The prosecutor handling the investigation must have , if this is possible , a higher rank than the CARDINAL being investigated . If a head prosecutor or his deputy is suspected of having committed a crime the case is handled by ORG . ORG or ORG , CARDINAL independent bodies outside the prosecution system , will carry out the investigation if ORG is concerned .

NORP In GPE the inquiry may be assigned to an ad hoc body in cases concerning the conduct of public officers or of officers or servants of a statutory body .

According to the law in GPE , criminal proceedings against the highest - ranking prosecutors ( ORG , ORG Tribunal Supremo ) fall within the competence of LAW . In criminal proceedings against judges , judicial officers and prosecutors in general for crimes committed in the exercise of their functions , the competence lies with LAW of each region . In both these cases the investigating judge is chosen from among the members of the section .

The Code of Criminal Procedure in GPE has introduced a special mechanism for determining the competent judge in cases where judges or prosecutors are parties , with the aim of ensuring the autonomy of the judge 's decision in cases in which his or her colleagues are involved .

NORP In a number of other countries , the investigation in cases involving suspicion against high - ranking prosecutors is carried out following the ordinary criminal procedure ( GPE , GPE and GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and the Former GPE ) . Nonetheless , there exist rules governing the distribution of cases aiming at ensuring independence . In GPE , in cases where the competent public prosecutor is subordinate to the public prosecutor under suspicion , the case may be entrusted to a prosecutor who is not bound by the instructions of the public prosecutor under suspicion . Moreover , by agreement between the Länder , the investigation can be taken over by another prosecution entity which has no personal connections to the prosecutor under suspicion and which is neither his subordinate nor his superior in the hierarchy .

General procedural safeguards applicable in most countries include provisions guaranteeing the institutional or functional independence of public prosecutors , whether they are members of the judiciary or civil servants . In GPE and GPE the institution of public prosecution is based on a model described by academics as that of institutional dependence and functional independence . In GPE , prosecutors are entirely independent in the performance of their functions .

Prosecutors are protected from undue pressure through additional safeguards such as the obligation to prosecute all offences except petty offences ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) . In GPE and GPE and GPE , which recognise the principle of discretionary prosecution , importance is attached to the transparency of official guidelines .

Many of the countries studied ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the Former GPE and GPE ) provide for the transfer or suspension of public prosecutors during the course of criminal proceedings against them .

Finally , in the legal system of GPE and GPE , any prosecutor 's decision made “ corruptly ” or considered as grossly unreasonable can be challenged by judicial review or through the procedure of abuse of process . In GPE all procedural acts of ORG are subject to appeal before ORG . Judicial control of the acts of the prosecution service is an important safeguard also in GPE . If necessary , this control can be transferred to another court outside the radius of action of the prosecution service concerned .

ORG for Human Rights has issued an Opinion concerning independent and effective determination of complaints against the police , published on DATE ( document CommDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) . The document describes as best practice in that area the operation of an independent complaints body , with responsibility for the investigation of complaints which may concern Articles CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Convention . The Commissioner further noted that in some member states , in order to address concerns about lack of independence of prosecutors when they work on cases against the police with whom they might have a close working relationship , specialist criminal prosecution authorities with their own investigators had been established . The example of ombudsman institutions which possess powers to bring charges before the court on their own authority was cited in this respect .


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

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

On DATE the motor yacht “ ORG ” caught fire and sank south of PERSON between the NORP coast and GPE . The NORP ship - owner and a NORP crew member were rescued by a NORP ferry passing by . Substantial damage was claimed for the loss of the vessel . The applicant submitted an expert report asserting that the market value of the ship was DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The insurance company and the GPE police made an inquiry into the sinking of the vessel .

On DATE the Berlin - Tiergarten District Court ( ORG ) issued an international warrant of arrest against the applicant suspecting him of having taken part as an expert in asserting a fraudulent claim in an amount of MONEY against an insurance carrier for the loss of the motor yacht . On the applicant ’s appeal ORG ( Landgericht ) confirmed the warrant of arrest .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and taken in detention in view of his extradition . On DATE he was extradited to GPE and on DATE taken in detention on remand . The indictment dated DATE charged the applicant with insurance fraud under LAW ( in its version in force until DATE ) . The applicant was accused of having been involved with others in the intentional sinking of an insured ship for the purpose of deriving an unjust economic advantage .

The applicant ’s requests for release were dismissed by ORG on the ground that there was a risk of collusion .

On DATE the trial started before ORG ( Landgericht ) .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG Verfassungsgerichtshof ) claiming that there was no evidence to suspect him of having committed or prepared an offence , and that his preventive detention was unlawful .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s release having regard inter alia to the long period spent by the applicant in detention on remand .

On DATE the applicant withdrew his constitutional complaint to ORG ..

On DATE ORG convicted another accused involved in the loss of the ship of fraud and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE , after having held CARDINAL hearings , ORG stayed the proceedings and revoked the warrant of arrest issued against the applicant on the ground that he suffered from a long - lasting illness . Having regard to his poor health , it did not fix a new hearing .

By the Sixth LAW of DATE , LAW , among other provisions , has been amended reducing the limitation period from DATE . As a consequence thereof , the limitation period for the charges brought against the applicant under that provision expired on DATE .

On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings on the ground of prescription of prosecution . It ordered the costs of the proceedings and the applicant ’s necessary costs and expenses to be borne by the ORG , while it refused to grant the applicant compensation for the prosecution measures taken against him , namely for the time spent in detention in view of his extradition and the detention on remand , the search of his home , office and his prison cell and the confiscation of a life raft and various documents . ORG relied on LAW , first sentence , of GPE ( PERSON über die PERSON für Strafverfolgungsmaßnahmen ) . In accordance with this provision compensation shall be denied if the accused had deliberately or grossly negligently caused the prosecution measures taken against him . According to ORG , gross negligence was the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances in order to be protected against harm by prosecution measures , or the failure to do what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances . The existence of gross negligence must be assessed with reference to those facts which were known at the time of issuing or maintaining the respective measure .

ORG considered that the prosecution measures were occasioned by the applicant ’s gross negligence . It mentioned in particular that the ship for which an insurance claim was made , had turned out to be a ship that the applicant had bought under a pseudonym and had modified in order to make it look as a ship of a higher value corresponding to that described in his expert report . These facts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt at the time of issuing the warrant of arrest and had been confirmed by further investigations and the evidence obtained at the oral hearings .

The applicant appealed against that decision arguing that ORG had committed errors of fact and law and arbitrarily assessed the evidence .

On DATE ORG ( GPE ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal lodged against the above decision .

On DATE ORG fixed the amount of the costs to be reimbursed to the applicant at DEM CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The applicant ’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint for adjudication without giving further reasons for its decision .

Compensation for prosecution measures is covered by LAW ( PERSON über die PERSON für Strafverfolgungsmaßnahmen ) .

In cases where an accused is acquitted or where the proceedings against him are discontinued or where a court refuses to open the proceedings against him , he is entitled to compensation for damages suffered due to time spent in detention on remand or due to other prosecution measures ( Section CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to LAW of that law , compensation for prosecution measures shall be denied in cases where the accused has deliberately or in a grossly negligent manner caused the prosecution measure .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings

The applicant , born in DATE , is a businessman living in PERSON ( GPE ) .

The applicant is the owner of CARDINAL properties , of QUANTITY m. and QUANTITY CARDINAL respectively,in the municipality of GPE . CARDINAL of the second property is tied up with a joint ownership of part of a path . In DATE an area zoning plan was prepared , although no general settlement regarding the applicant 's properties was achieved . The applicant also unsuccessfully requested the GPE municipality on a number of occasions to take over the CARDINAL properties and to compensate him accordingly .

The applicant was also involved in other building proceedings in the GPE municipality in which the opposing party , a cantonal insurance pension office , was represented by a lawyer , Mr W.

The applicant was furthermore involved in building proceedings against the CARDINAL municipality in which that municipality was represented by a lawyer , PERSON These proceedings were conducted before ORG of the GPE of GPE and in last resort before ORG , its decision having been given on DATE .

PERSON and Mr W. are practising lawyers ( PERSON ) who at that time shared office premises in GPE together with Mr L. Lawyers R. and PERSON also acted as part - time administrative court judges at ORG of the GPE of GPE .

In the proceedings concerning the applicant 's properties in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant filed on DATE an action with ORG of the GPE of GPE , requesting an order that the GPE municipality take over the CARDINAL properties , including the joint ownership , for the sum of MONEY .

In the applicant 's case , the bench of ORG was then composed of CARDINAL judges , namely the Vice - President , CARDINAL administrative court judges and CARDINAL substitute judge . Among the administrative court judges were NORP and PERSON , who were part - time judges .

On DATE the court rejected the applicant 's action . The ORG found that it was not competent to deal with the matter which appertained to the jurisdiction of ORG Schätzungskommission ) . However , the court declined to transmit the case to ORG as the applicant had forfeited his right to claim compensation . Thus , if he had disagreed with the area zoning plan , in particular with the settlement of accounts of DATE , he should have requested the institution of assessment proceedings at the relevant time . The ORG found that the claim for compensation would in any event be unfounded as it had to be directed against other proprietors in the area covered by the zoning plan , rather than the municipality .

The applicant filed a public - law appeal with ORG in which he complained , on the one hand , about the outcome of the proceedings , on the other , that judge NORP had shortly before acted in separate appeal proceedings , instituted by the applicant , as the legal representative of the opposing party , namely the GPE . Moreover , judge NORP shared office premises with judge PERSON , and also with PERSON who , in separate proceedings instituted by the applicant , had represented the opposing party .

The public - law appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE , the decision being served on DATE . In its decision , the court dealt with the applicant 's complaint that certain judges of ORG had not been impartial as follows :

“ The interrelations mentioned may raise certain doubts in view of LAW which requires the impartiality of judges . However , the applicant does not claim that NORP or another member of ORG was in fact biased when giving the contested decision . ORG has already previously held that the fact that legal representatives in the GPE of GPE also acted as part - time administrative court judges could under certain circumstances result in an interrelation of interests . The ORG found , however , that it could be expected from a part - time judge that he could distinguish between his official function and his private professional activities . A part - time judge was not , therefore , obliged to stand down merely because he had represented legal interests in other proceedings which were opposed to those of the applicant ... In view of these principles it can equally not be assumed in the present case that ORG was composed of judges who could be regarded as biased when giving the contested decision . ”

ORG furthermore did not consider it arbitrary that ORG had found that the applicant 's claims were forfeited as he had failed duly to raise them .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request to reopen the proceedings .

ORG of the GPE of GPE consists of both full - time and part - time judges , the latter also acting as practising lawyers on a part - time basis .

Section CARDINAL of ORG ( Verwaltungsrechtspflegegesetz ) of the GPE of GPE of DATE concerns “ incompatibility ” ( GPE ) and stated in the version in force at the relevant time :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The office of a full - time judge of ORG is incompatible with any other full - time professional activity [ hauptberufliche ORG ] . Full - time judges may not be members of ORG nor members or registrars of a municipal or district council . They are not allowed legally to represent third persons before courts and administrative bodies . An authorisation of the cantonal parliament is required if they wish to belong to the administration or management of a commercial company or cooperative acting for commercial purposes .

NORP Part - time judges may not be employed full - time by an administrative authority or a court , and may not be members or registrars of a municipal or district council . ”

The Administrative Judiciary Procedure Act was revised in DATE and section CARDINAL now states :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The office of a full - time member of ORG is incompatible both with any other full - time professional activity and with the professional representation of third persons before courts or administrative authorities .

NORP The office of a part - time member of ORG is incompatible with the professional representation of third persons before ORG ... ”

In GPE no particular magistrate 's training is required to enter the judicial profession . This explains , inter alia , the comparatively high number of practising lawyers ( legal representatives ) acting as part - time or substitute judges .

The ORG consists of CARDINAL full - time and CARDINAL part - time judges , and ORG consists of CARDINAL full - time and CARDINAL part - time judges . Part - time judges may exercise the profession of practising lawyer . According to section CARDINAL of LAW ( Organisationsgesetz ) , judges shall stand down if , in a particular case , they have participated in another capacity , inter alia as legal adviser or as practising lawyer . ORG of ORG furthermore avoids appointing as part - time judges persons resident in the canton in which the case originates .

In various federal appeals commissions ( PERSON ) provision is made for full - time and part - time judges . Whatever other functions the latter exercise , these functions may not compromise the accomplishment of their tasks or the independence and reputation of the appeals commission .

In various cantons , no particular regulations exist as to part - time judges acting as practising lawyers , for example for certain judges of the Cantons of Appenzell Inner Rhodes , Graubünden and GPE . Other cantons have specific legislation on the matter .

For instance , certain cantonal courts are composed exclusively of full - time judges who exercise no other legal profession , for instance ORG and of GPE ; ORG and GPE ; ORG of the GPE of ORG ; and ORG and ORG of the Canton of GPE . In the GPE of Graubünden , as from DATE , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL presidents of the first - instance courts will act as full - time judges .

In some cantons , certain part - time judges are prohibited from acting as practising lawyers , for instance in the GPE of GPE ( part - time judges of ORG in criminal cases ) and in the GPE of GPE ( part - time judges of ORG and the specialised administrative courts and the presidents of the district courts ) . In the GPE of GPE a new law has been proposed which , as from DATE , intends to prohibit part - time judges from acting as practising lawyers , although this function will continue to be possible for substitute judges . In the GPE of PERSON , part - time district court judges may not act as practising lawyers in the district in question .

In various cantons part - time judges of a court may not appear before that court as practising lawyers , for instance in GPE , GPE ( in respect of ORG ) , ORG ( in respect of the regular judge at ORG in administrative matters ) , PERSON ( in respect of part - time judges who are otherwise employed for PERCENT of their time ) , PERSON ( in respect of judges of the administrative courts and their respective divisions and , as from DATE , in respect of district and regional court presidents and their deputies ) . The GPE of GPE is currently revising its relevant legal norms along these lines .

Certain cantonal courts envisage the possibility for substitute judges to act as practising lawyers , for instance in the Cantons of Aargau ( labour courts ) , ORG ) , GPE , GPE , ORG ) , GPE , GPE and GPE ( ORG and ORG ) .

ORG has pronounced on various occasions on the question of the impartiality of lawyers acting as judges , in particular the danger of a link of dependency between the judge and one of the parties . For instance , a lawyer may not act as judge in a case where he or she is representing CARDINAL of the parties to the case , or where in separate pending proceedings he or she is representing the opposing party . On the other hand , as a rule no issue will arise where the lawyer once represented a party and the mandate has been completed . The mere fact that the lawyer generally advises in building matters does not imply that as a judge he will necessarily favour a plaintiff who is involved in the construction of a house ( see judgment of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON Staats- PERSON CARDINAL , DATE , DATE ; and the judgment of DATE , ORG fédéral suisse ( ORG ) , vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL ) .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza

The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON are brothers . They are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and GPE .

The applicants are heirs of the owner of CARDINAL plots of land and buildings , which constituted a property called “ ORG ” . The property was de facto expropriated by the ORG by virtue of the DATE ORG in DATE .

NORP However , in this particular case the relevant authorities failed to issue an appropriate administrative decision , declaring that the property had been subject to expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform .

NORP In DATE ORG ownership title was entered in the land and mortgage register .

In respect of plot no . DATE , the right of perpetual use of that plot was granted by ORG to the “ PERSON - Kieleckiego SA ” and that company was designated as the present occupier . On DATE the ORG - owned enterprise was transformed into an independent public company , the “ PERSON - Kieleckiego SA ” , the structure and functioning of which were governed by the provisions of LAW and other relevant Acts . The ORG however retained a PERCENT shareholding in the company .

On DATE the applicants requested the GPE Governor to issue a decision stating that the property “ FAC Kolonie Fabryczne ” should not have been subject to expropriation under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( e ) of the DATE ORG .

On DATE the FAC Governor partly dismissed the applicants’ request , finding that a part of the property had met the criteria for expropriation set out in the CARDINAL Decree . However , the Governor declared that several plots of land with an overall area of CARDINAL hectares should not have been subject to expropriation . This decision concerned , among others , plot no . CARDINAL .

The applicants and the present occupier of CARDINAL of the plots appealed . On DATE the ORG opponent withdrew its appeal . On DATE the Minister of Agriculture discontinued the appellate proceedings in respect of the part of the decision given in the applicants’ favour and dismissed the ORG appeal against the remainder of the decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG further appeal , finding that the contested administrative decisions of the GPE Governor and the Minister of Agriculture had been lawful .

On DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings for rectification of an entry in the land and mortgage register . They requested the court to enter their title to plot no . CARDINAL in the land and mortgage register . Hearings were held on DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG gave a decision , securing the applicants’ claims by entering a caveat in the land and mortgage register . Subsequently , the court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the above administrative proceedings .

On DATE , following the delivery of the FAC Governor ’s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicants requested that the proceedings be resumed in the part concerning the following plots : CARDINAL ) CARDINAL . DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ; CARDINAL ) nos . ORG and ORG ; CARDINAL ) no . DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered a partial judgment in respect of the plots listed under CARDINAL ) nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL ) CARDINAL . CARDINAL and DATE . The judgment in this part became final . The proceedings in respect of plot no . DATE continued .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings in respect of plot no . DATE as it had decided , following the request of another party , to re - open the proceedings in respect of plots nos . CARDINAL and DATE . The proceedings were resumed on an unknown date .

On DATE ORG gave judgment in the case . In respect of the disputed plot no . DATE the court partly allowed the ORG claim and decided on rectification of an entry in the land and mortgage register in respect of plot no . CARDINAL . The court dismissed the remainder of the claim ( plots nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , finding that that part of plot no . DATE had been sold by the applicants’ predecessor in title in DATE . It had been in the possession of certain individuals until DATE when it had been resold to ORG with a view to realising certain development plans . The judgment became final as no parties lodged an appeal .

On DATE the applicants were entered in the land and mortgage register as the owners of plot no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicants sold the abovementioned plot to the present occupier ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicants lodged an action for recovery of plot no . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings for rectification of an entry in the land and mortgage register ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicants requested the court to resume the proceedings . The applicants submitted that the proceedings regarding the rectification of the entry in the land and mortgage register had been pending before ORG . However , they wished to have the proceedings resumed as the GPE Governor ’s decision of DATE had become final in respect of plot no . CARDINAL and their title to this plot had not been disputed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ request .

On DATE the applicants requested the court to resume the proceedings as the proceedings regarding the rectification of the entry in the land and mortgage register had ended on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the court resumed the proceedings .

On DATE the proceedings were discontinued , since the applicants had withdrawn their action .

On DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings for compensation for the use of their property by ORG without valid legal title . They claimed compensation for the period from CARDINAL DATE .

The right of perpetual use of plot no . DATE was granted by ORG to the “ PERSON - Kieleckiego SA ” and that company was designated as the present occupier ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG gave judgment in the case . On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment . On DATE ORG quashed the second - instance judgment and remitted the case .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the case . At the hearing the applicants partly withdrew their claim in respect of plots nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG gave judgment partly in the applicants’ favour awarding them the amount of ORG CARDINAL for the period from DATE to DATE . In respect of plot no . DATE the court awarded the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and dismissed the defendant ’s claim that part of that plot had been sold by the applicants’ predecessor in DATE as it had failed to substantiate them .

On DATE the applicants sold plot no . CARDINAL to the present occupier of the property - the “ PERSON - Kieleckiego SA ” . On the basis of that agreement the applicants were awarded compensation for the use of the plot without title for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . In respect of the period from DATE to DATE the parties decided that it would be subject to another agreement to be concluded in the future or civil proceedings .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time ( “ the GPE ” ) . The applicants claimed just satisfaction in the amount of ORG . They also requested the court to take action to expedite and resume the proceedings for recovery of the property ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the complaints of PERSON and PERSON Tarnowski as all CARDINAL applicants had paid MONEY by way of ORG fees . It held that this had been contrary to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , which provided that each applicant was obliged to pay the amount of ORG CARDINAL in respect of their complaints .

Having examined the complaint lodged by Mr PERSON , on DATE ORG found that the proceedings had been handled properly . The court concluded that the fact that the proceedings had been suspended from DATE had not amounted to “ unreasonable delay ” as defined by LAW . It found that a delay had occurred only between the date when the applicants submitted their request for the proceedings to be resumed to ORG on DATE and the date of the decision on this matter on DATE . The court granted Mr PERSON just satisfaction in the amount of ORG as he had requested . The court dismissed the request for the proceedings to be expedited .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , is set out in the ORG ’s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-V , and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII , and the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V.

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning LAW No . CARDINAL is set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI , and PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , judgment of CARDINAL DATE .


Preliminary objection allowed (lack of victim status);Inadmissible

On CARDINAL DATE GPE was registered as a political party with ORG of GPE .

According to GPE ’s constitutional charter , it was founded “ to support the renascence of the NORP nation , to enhance the latter ’s political activity and to protect ORG political , socio - economic and cultural rights ” . The name “ NORP ” applies to the peoples of NORP origin who speak a language which belongs to the NORP language family . Four - fifths of the LOC ( CARDINAL people ) live in GPE : the majority live in GPE and GPE , and the rest are dispersed across LOC and in the NORP region . The LOC are NORP .

On DATE the Simbirsk ( Ulyanovsk ) Regional Organisation of ORG ( “ the Regional Organisation ” ) was registered with ORG . GPE claims that this was a branch of its party .

On DATE ORG made an appeal ( “ the appeal ” ) to the “ peoples of the NORP region , to all oppressed peoples of the empire , to ORG authorities , to historians , students of local lore , archaeologists and scientists ” , entitled “ Prevention and cancellation of the forthcoming witches’ Sabbath arranged by reactionary forces – ‘ the war party’- the so - called ‘ CARDINALth anniversary of the founding of the town of Simbirsk’ which is in fact an approximate date of the colonisation of ORG ” .

NORP The appeal contained , inter alia , the following statements :

“ To the indigenous population of GPE : tartars , chuvash , erzya , moksha , PERSON , bashkir .

Never allow desecration or mockery of the memory of your ancestors ; do not allow the reactionary NORP forces to celebrate the date of colonisation of Sember . Shekhry Sember is a DATE town of your glorious ancestors . In the town centre , on FAC and in the outskirts lie their graves – do not allow them to be defiled . Be prepared for the anniversary of the colonisation of ORG . On the ancestors’ Memorial Day , CARDINAL DATE at TIME , all come out to our sacred Sember Hill – to the ORG DATE between the PERSON and PERSON square . A trip to the ORG graves and the ruins of ORG will also be on offer and everyone who wishes will have an opportunity to turn to NORP . Let us stand up for the honour and dignity of our peoples . Let us celebrate the CARDINALth Anniversary of Shekhry Sember in a dignified manner , inshallah . Strive for decolonisation of the peoples who are prisoners of GPE - PERSON , the NORP empire .

Who knows how much loss , humiliation , suffering , deprivation and sacrifice our peoples have endured : racial discrimination , employment discrimination , the ban on education in our native language , forced service in the ORG army ?

Strive for legitimisation of indigenous languages . Strive for the holding of fair municipal elections on the basis of national communities . Strive for education for every child in the national language from primary level to higher education . Strive for satellite channels broadcasting from GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON , GPE , GPE , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .

Indigenous peoples idel - uras - seber - krym iort , and in particular semberile and even NORP – you are the heirs of the great NORP culture . Come back to ORG . There will be CARDINAL of us .

To the ORG administration , to PERSON and Mr PERSON personally , to historians , students of local lore , archaeologists and scientists of the region :

Mr PERSON , Mr GPE and their subordinates ,

Do not fall under the influence of pseudo - historians , the “ war party ” from GPE , the local liberal democratic party , pseudo - scientists and NORP . Stop the witches’ Sabbath in celebration of the CARDINALth anniversary of the colonisation of PERSON . Even the colonisation date is intentionally confusing . The real colonisation date is DATE is a good round figure of colonisation , i.e. DATE . Do not stir up the NORP population against the indigenous peoples of GPE – you will not succeed . God be with us , inshallah .

Mr PERSON , Mr GPE and local governors ,

Stop wasting our regional budget on the creation of monuments to an apostate and traitor of his peoples , the converted NORP Tartar PERSON ... , in accordance with the directions of the “ war party ” in GPE . The money saved on the witches’ Sabbath should be invested in founding a NORP ORG and introducing TV broadcasting in the local languages . Bring back education in the national language for every child .

On the sacred Sember Hill between the ORG and FAC , on the burial place of our sacred ancestors , restore the remembrance tombstone destroyed by your administration ... Restore or allow to be restored the main temple Shekhry Sember on PERSON .

Mr PERSON , have the courage to apologise on behalf of all your predecessors to the peoples of the Region for the centuries of humiliation , suffering , deprivation and sacrifices , since you are their successor . Someone must put an end to it .

NORP ... There is no point in hiding , and it is common knowledge that there are only CARDINAL NORP , with CARDINAL being NORP speakers who do not remember their ancestors and historical - ethnic origin . Deprivation of historical and ethnic roots , of memory and the motherland is the sad result of the violence imposed in order to create a mono - ethnic and monolingual empire .

We , the peoples of the NORP region , were , are , and always will be , inshallah .

Given his DATE of experience in the national liberation movement , his courage , his knowledge of the region and his understanding of people , ORG of GPE empowers PERSON to be at the head of the national liberation fight and to form a brigade of trustworthy , courageous , consecrated and resistant people .

Let us shorten the arms of the “ war party ” in GPE ! Free the empire ’s peoples ! Decolonise GPE ! Bring NORP education in the national language to all children ! These are the common slogans of all peoples - prisoners of GPE . ”

On DATE ORG asked the mayor of GPE to authorise a ceremony dedicated to the CARDINALth anniversary of the founding of Sember . On CARDINAL DATE the mayor gave permission for the ceremony to be held in places of worship belonging to religious organisations and in cemeteries .

On DATE DATE ORG held a memorial ceremony in the city centre , where , according to GPE , an ancient NORP cemetery was formerly located .

On DATE the prosecutor of ORG applied to ORG to have ORG activities suspended on the ground that it had called for violence , contrary to the federal legislation and LAW .

On DATE ORG examined the prosecutor ’s claim .

Firstly , the court considered various statements made by ORG in the light of their conformity with the LAW , in particular , the appeal of CARDINAL DATE and noted that ORG :

- referred to the ORG institutions responsible for the public celebration of the CARDINALth anniversary of PERSON as “ NORP ” ;

- called for “ decolonisation of the peoples who are prisoners of GPE – PERSON , the NORP empire ” ;

- referred to GPE as “ the enemy of humankind ” ;

- referred to NORP citizens as “ NORP speakers who do not remember their ancestors and historical - ethnic origin ” ;

- urged the authorities “ to stop the witches’ Sabbath in celebration of the CARDINALth anniversary of the colonisation of PERSON ” and “ to stop wasting [ the ] regional budget ” ;

- empowered ORG secretary , PERSON , “ to be at the head of the national liberation fight and to form a brigade of trustworthy , courageous , consecrated and resistant people ” .

The court also found that ORG had called for recognition of the independence of GPE and for a return by the peoples of the NORP region to NORP ( conference minutes of CARDINAL DATE ) , and that it had called on the Sember peoples to join the Tartar NORP in their national liberation fight ( minutes of ORG of DATE ) . A reference was also made to ORG of ORG activities , where the court found calls to “ decolonise GPE ” , to form military forces “ on the basis of religious confessions ” and to “ abolish the neo - imperialistic emblem depicting crosses and passports which gave no indication of ethnic origin ” .

The court held that all of the above statements were incompatible with the LAW . The court stated , inter alia , the following :

“ ... ORG of ORG openly calls for violation of the integrity of GPE , for violent alteration of the foundations of constitutional governance and for the creation of an NORP State in GPE . ORG proclaims the idea of a national liberation fight and calls for the formation of a brigade of trustworthy , courageous and resistant people . The activities and opinions of ORG leaders and members are of an extreme nationalist nature , inciting people to national and religious discord and denigrating the NORP speaking population and non - adherents of ORG . ”

Secondly , the court found that the memorial ceremony of DATE DATE held by ORG in the centre of GPE was in breach of the mayor ’s permit .

NORP The court concluded that the activities of ORG did not correspond to the purposes declared in its LAW and violated LAW of LAW , which prohibits the establishment and activities of public associations whose aims and actions are directed at the violent alteration of the foundations of constitutional governance , violation of the integrity of GPE and the undermining of state security , the forming of armed units and incitement to social , racial , national and religious strife . The court allowed the prosecutor ’s appeal and suspended ORG activities for DATE .

Ipso jure , ORG was prohibited from holding meetings , demonstrations and other public actions , taking part in elections and disposing of its bank accounts other than for the payment of expenses incurred in the course of normal activities , payment of labour contracts , damages and fines .

ORG challenged the judgment of CARDINAL DATE before ORG of GPE , contending that ORG had misinterpreted the meaning of the appeal , which reflected the Tartars’ history and that there had been no incitement to national or religious strife or anything which might insult the dignity of NORP . ORG insisted that the ceremony of CARDINAL DATE had been held at the site of the ancient NORP cemetery .

On DATE ORG upheld the first instance judgment . An application for supervisory review was dismissed by the same court on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed a claim by ORG to dissolve the Regional Organisation on account of its failure to bring its LAW in compliance with new legislation . This decision has not been appealed against .

The relevant provisions of GPE ’s constitutional charter read as follows :

“ The Charter of ORG ...

CARDINAL NORP ORG is a political party ...

CARDINAL ORG carries out its activities on the territory of GPE , where regional organisations are created ( GPE , GPE , ORG , GPE , ORG and GPE and GPE ) ...

CARDINAL NORP The seat of GPE ’s headquarters , ORG , is in GPE .

CARDINAL NORP All party organisations shall be autonomous in taking decisions concerning local matters in so far as these do not conflict with the party ’s Charter or its Programme .

CARDINAL ORG has been set up for the protection of citizens of NORP origin , citizens of other origin and of their political , economic , social and cultural rights and freedoms , in order to promote their active participation in the governing of the state and social affairs .

CARDINAL To achieve its goals GPE shall pursue the following objectives :

- participating as prescribed by law in the state legislative and executive bodies , by nominating its candidates to express the political will of its members ;

- promoting the creation of ethnic districts , circuits and country councils in those places where LOC are concentrated within GPE ;

- carrying out organisational activities , campaigns , propaganda and other information activities for educational and pedagogical purposes , promoting the return of the NORP script ;

- organising lectures , seminars , talks , round - table discussions , mass and collective actions and other events , in accordance with the law and the party ’s goals and objectives ; ...

- representing its ORG interests before state bodies and public institutions ; ...

CARDINAL NORP The party shall be organised on a territorial basis . The primary party units , namely the district , town , circuit and regional organisations , shall form the party ’s base .

CARDINAL LOC organisations shall be set in accordance with the administrative and territorial division of GPE and shall draw up their action programmes in accordance with local circumstances and shall elect delegates to the party ’s ORG ( PERSON ) ; in accordance with the law , they shall participate in local government structures . The regional organisations shall establish themselves as legal persons in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law . Where this is done , they shall adopt their own LAW , which may not be contrary to the party ’s LAW and its ORG , and shall register it in accordance with the law .

CARDINAL NORP The party ’s President shall be in charge of the party ’s general management between the meetings of the party ’s Congress ... he shall speak on the party ’s behalf ... and represent the party without power of attorney in any state bodies and public institutions ... ”

The relevant provisions of ORG constitutional charter read as follows :

“ Charter of the PERSON ( GPE ) Regional Organisation of ORG ...

CARDINAL NORP ORG of ORG is a party political organisation ...

CARDINAL Membership of the party may be terminated by ORG ... for non - compliance with the party ’s LAW and its ORG ; this decision is subject to appeal to the party ’s higher organs , including ORG .

CARDINAL ORG of ORG has been set up for the protection of citizens of NORP origin , citizens of other origin and their political , economic , social and cultural rights and freedoms , in order to promote their active participation in the governing of the state and social affairs .

CARDINAL To achieve its goals ORG of ORG sets the following objectives :

- participating as prescribed by law in the structures of state legislative and executive bodies , by nominating its candidates to express the political will of its members ;

- representing its ORG interests before state bodies and public institutions .

CARDINAL During the intervals between the [ ORG ] conferences ORG of ORG shall be in charge of the [ ORG ] activities . ”

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ The creation and activity of public associations shall be prohibited if their aims and actions seek to alter the foundations of the constitutional system by violence , to breach the integrity of GPE , to undermine the security of the state , to create paramilitary units , or to rouse social , racial , national and religious strife . ”

“ Every person shall be guaranteed the right to freedom of conscience , freedom of religion , including the right to profess , either alone or in community with others , any or no religion , to freely choose , have and disseminate religious or other convictions and to act according to them . ”

“ Every person shall have the right to freedom of thought and speech . ”

“ Propaganda and campaigning to instigate social , racial , national or religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed . The propaganda of social , racial , national , religious or language exclusiveness shall be banned . ”

“ Every person shall have the right to freedom of association , including the right to establish trade unions to protect his interests . Free activity of public associations shall be guaranteed . ”

“ Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to meet peacefully , without arms , and to organise discussions , meetings and demonstrations , as well as processions and pickets . ”

At the material time , the relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ An association ’s activity may be suspended by a court decision where infringement of LAW , the constitutions ( statutes ) of the constituent entities of GPE , or the laws of GPE is found . ”

“ A court ’s decision to suspend the activities of a public association for a certain period shall entail the suspension of its right of assembly , its right to hold meetings , rallies , demonstrations and ( or ) other public actions , to participate in elections and to access funds on its bank accounts other than for payment of expenses incurred in the course of normal activities , payment of labour contracts , damages and fines ... ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides that a legal person is autonomous in exercising its rights and carrying out its obligations , and that it has standing as a party to proceedings before a court .