The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE . When introducing his application he was serving an DATE prison sentence in GPE . Before the ORG he is represented by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE together with his family . They were accommodated at the asylum centre GPE , GPE . The applicant ’s arrival caused disturbances at the asylum centre as some of the refugees , coming also from the former GPE , thought to have recognised the applicant as a perpetrator of violent acts committed in DATE and DATE in the prison camp of PERSON during the armed conflict in the former GPE . ( The prison camp of PERSON was situated in the municipality of Čaplinja in the southern part of what is now GPE . It appears that this area was NORP controlled territory at the time of the alleged offences . )

The NORP police authorities were notified by the management of the asylum centre and during the following weeks a number of former prisoners from the prison camp , at that time residing in GPE , were interrogated by the police .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with having illtreated and killed prisoners in the aforementioned prison camp . The applicant denied the charges .

On DATE ORG Retten i Roskilde ) decided to detain the applicant on remand as there were reasons to suspect that he had committed acts amounting to grievous bodily harm ( legemsangreb af særlig rå , brutal eller farlig karakter ) within in the meaning of LAW of LAW under particularly aggravating circumstances ( særdeles skærpende omstændigheder ) within the meaning of LAW of LAW . Furthermore , his detention on remand was based on the fear that he would evade prosecution or impede the investigations if he were at large during the proceedings .

On DATE counsel for the applicant requested the Chief of Police of Roskilde ( GPE i GPE ) to identify a number of assumed witnesses to the acts with which the applicant was charged , in order to interrogate them about the general conditions of the prison camp and their knowledge of the applicant ’s conduct in the camp . The witnesses included CARDINAL former prisoners from the camp , GPE , GPE and GPE ; CARDINAL former police officers who served in the camp while the applicant was there , C.J. and GPE , and the director of the camp during the applicant ’s stay there , PERSON In addition , the testimony of a person alleged to have been working with the applicant in the kitchen of the camp , GPE , was requested . These witnesses were presumed to reside in specific cities or villages in the former GPE and , with regard to some of the witnesses , a telephone number was mentioned . However , no precise addresses were submitted .

On DATE the Police of Roskilde requested ORG in GPE to contact the NORP and NORP authorities in order to obtain their assistance in identifying and finding the aforementioned persons .

It appears that the Chief of ORG informed the ORG , on DATE by phone and on DATE by fax , that it was not possible to identify the named persons since they were citizens of GPE and since the criminal acts had not taken place in GPE . Furthermore , on DATE , ORG informed the ORG that for the time being they had no opportunity to contact the persons in question .

On DATE counsel reminded the police that the aforementioned witnesses be summoned and requested that CARDINAL more witness , PERSON , be identified and interrogated . The letter contains no further information about this person .

Furthermore , on DATE counsel requested a lawyer practising in GPE to assist in providing the required evidence .

On DATE the Police of Roskilde again requested the ORG in GPE to provide information CARDINAL witnesses , including LOC and GPE On DATE a similar request was made to FAC in GPE . It appears that the police never received a reply to any of these requests .

On DATE an indictment ( amended on DATE ) was served on the applicant charging him with CARDINAL counts of grievous bodily harm committed against prisoners in the camp during DATE and DATE , on CARDINAL occasions causing the deaths of the victims .

In a letter dated DATE the NORP lawyer informed counsel that he had requested the local judicial authorities to interrogate the witnesses in question . However , due to the state of war in the area and lack of judges , the local authorities had not been able to carry out the interrogations required . The NORP lawyer had obtained , however , a written statement from GPE , which read , inter alia , as follows :

( Translation )

“ I , [ T.S. ] , ... give , at the request of PERSON from Čaplinja , this

Testimony :

In the period DATE and DATE I served as a prison camp director in PERSON , Čaplinja ...

I have known [ the applicant ] from DATE to DATE . In DATE the military authorities sent him to the camp in PERSON ... When he arrived to the camp he told me that he was a waiter of profession and that he had been working as such in GPE . As there was no trained staff in the kitchen in PERSON I sent him to work there and he was there all the time while he was in the camp . Thus , he has not been a guard - or a gaoler in the camp of PERSON , but worked as a prisoner in the kitchen ...

[ The applicant ] is married to PERSON from Čaplinja , daughter of PERSON , ... [ NORP the last period I noticed that NORP from the PERSON area expressed doubts as to his loyalty to the NORP as he had married a catholic ... and on several occasions there were fights between NORP from the Čaplinja area and NORP from the PERSON area ...

[ The applicant ] ... had during his stay in the camp neither opportunity , nor competence to ill - treat ... NORP prisoners and he has not done so .

In the camp of PERSON the NORP prisoners were separated in that CARDINAL group of NORP expressed NORP tendencies and behaved as such , whereas another group from PERSON expressed obvious fundamentalist tendencies and due to this there were more frequent conflicts .

They soon learned that [ the applicant ] ... had married PERSON , ... [ T]his group of NORP from PERSON , who expressed obvious fundamentalist tendencies , despised him , humiliated him and threatened him with physical harm as he had married the catholic NORP Jovanović and had given the children ... NORP names .

He had ... no authorisation from me , as director of the camp , to ... impose disciplinary sanctions and he could not have done so because the camp management would not have allowed it .

The group of prisoners from PERSON and from GPE addresses him as prison guard but he has never exercised such function ... he had the same rights and duties as all other prisoners .

The following witnesses can testify that [ the applicant ] ... did not , during his compulsorily detention in [ the camp ] ... , in any way ill - treat any NORP ... : [ FAC ] ... [ GPE ] ... [ GPE ] ... [ GPE ] ... [ M.B. ] ... [ GPE ] and [ C.J. ] ... and by these witnesses I have been told that they are willing to give testimony in court in GPE or in LOC in the case against [ the applicant ] and I am as director of the camp even willing to go to GPE and ... under oath give testimony ...

I stress that as a prison director I had an organised corps [ under my command ] which was necessary in order to meet the needs of the camp and , furthermore , I arranged ... a system in order to obtain information so that I would be informed of all events in [ the camp ] . However , in the period DATE and DATE I was not informed CARDINAL single time that [ the applicant ] was supposed to have ill - treated other prisoners while I had not been present .

To my profound belief this charge is raised against [ the applicant ] by fundamentalist NORP from the PERSON area , who have not been able to come to terms with the fact that [ the applicant ] is married to a NORP and has given his children NORP names ...

I solemnly declare that my statements in this testimony are correct and this ... testimony I am also prepared to give under oath before a court in GPE .

It is unclear from the material submitted whether this information was mentioned to the prosecution prior to the trial .

On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s counsel reminded the police of the request that the aforementioned witnesses be summoned to trial .

On DATE the Police of Roskilde urged ORG in GPE to contact the NORP authorities and request their assistance in order to find the QUANTITY witnesses and to summon them to appear before ORG of Eastern GPE ( PERSON ) on DATE . At the same time the police requested that CARDINAL other witnesses , also residing in former GPE , be summoned on behalf of the prosecution . These CARDINAL of whom had previously been interrogated by the police while residing in GPE - appeared at the hearing before ORG .

On DATE the Police of Roskilde , apparently occasioned by a negative reply from the ORG in GPE , forwarded their request to the NORP authorities for the summoning of the defence ’s witnesses through ORG in GPE .

The case was heard by ORG of Eastern Denmark from DATE until DATE , the ORG sitting with CARDINAL professional judges and a jury . During the hearing the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses were heard and written evidence was submitted , including a report prepared by ORG ( Retslægerådet ) . This report stated that the applicant was probably not insane prior to his arrival in GPE but that he subsequently developed a psychosis caused by external factors .

Among the aforementioned CARDINAL witnesses who were heard by ORG , there appears to have been witnesses called on the part of the prosecutor as well as the defence . Most of the witnesses were eyewitnesses to the events they gave evidence about . With regard to the CARDINAL most serious counts of violence committed against GPE and PERSON and leading to the death of the victims , several witnesses testified that the applicant had actively contributed to the violence committed against ORG , whereas CARDINAL witness had personally seen PERSON being ill - treated by the applicant .

With regard to the aforementioned CARDINAL witnesses requested by the defence the transcripts from the proceedings in ORG on DATE read as follows :

( Translation )

As regards [ GPE , GPE , GPE , C.J. , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE ] no information has been submitted as to where they are presently residing .

[ The applicant ’s counsel ] requested that the hearing be adjourned for the purpose of obtaining further information as to whether and when these witnesses can be called . He referred in that respect to LAW subsection DATE , and LAW ( retsplejeloven

ORG objected to the principal request as well as to the alternative . He referred to exhibit ... and added that the police subsequent thereto and DATE had been on the line to ORG in GPE , who merely refers to the state of war . Everything possible has been attempted to reach the witnesses requested by counsel and under these circumstances [ it serves no purpose ] to adjourn the proceedings . In the opinion of the prosecution the conditions of Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of ORG are not fulfilled .

Having deliberated [ the ORG ] ... made the following

Decision :

It is established that prior to and during the hearing the prosecution has availed itself of all possible means in order to reach the witnesses .

As it must be considered improbable , in the light of the conditions in GPE , that an adjournment of the hearing will lead to the completion of the testimonial evidence within a foreseeable period of time , the request for adjournment is denied .

As there exists in the present case quite extraordinary difficulties for the defence in the production of evidence , its request [ to read out the documents ] is exceptionally granted .

It is decided :

The hearing is not adjourned . It is allowed to read out in court [ the aforementioned documents ] .

[ The documents ] were read out .

The statement by ORG was the one given to the NORP lawyer ( cf . above ) .

After the hearing of evidence and the parties’ closing arguments the prosecution declared that it dropped the charges concerning CARDINAL of the CARDINAL counts for which the applicant was accordingly acquitted .

The jury was then asked to consider , primarily , whether the applicant was guilty in the CARDINAL remaining counts charging him with having committed acts , in the prison camp in DATE and DATE , amounting to grievous bodily harm within the meaning of LAW of LAW under particularly aggravated circumstances within the meaning of LAW of LAW and ORG and CARDINAL of LAW and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . In the alternative they were asked to consider whether the acts in question amounted to grievous bodily harm within the meaning of Section CARDINAL of the Penal Code and the aforementioned Articles of LAW , only . In addition , the jury was asked whether , pursuant to LAW , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW , the applicant ’s sentence ought to exceed the maximum penalty of any of the provisions with which he was charged , with up to CARDINAL of the maximum .

The jury answered in the negative to the primary questions as well as to the alternative ones with regard to CARDINAL counts for which counts the applicant was subsequently acquitted . They answered in the affirmative to the primary questions with regard to CARDINAL of the counts and in the affirmative to the alternative questions with regard to the remaining CARDINAL counts . The jury also answered in the affirmative to the additional question relating to the applicant ’s sentence .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was accordingly convicted of CARDINAL counts in accordance with the jury ’s verdict . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . It was , furthermore , decided that the applicant be committed to a mental hospital until his prison sentence could be executed . Finally , it was decided that he be expelled from GPE subsequent to having served his prison sentence .

The applicant appealed against ORG judgment to ORG ( Højesteret ) which in the circumstances was only competent to determine whether procedural errors had been committed and to determine the sentence . ORG was on the other hand not empowered to determine the applicant ’s guilt .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel requested ORG to make another attempt to find the CARDINAL witnesses in question .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel submitted to ORG , inter alia , that the applicant be acquitted of CARDINAL counts and that the remainder of ORG judgment be quashed and remitted to ORG . In support of the claim he argued that ORG had made a procedural error by deciding not to adjourn the case in order to call in the CARDINAL witnesses . He invoked LAW ( d ) of the LAW .

It appears from the material submitted that , on DATE , ORG requested ORG to establish , through ORG and ORG , a contact with the CARDINAL witnesses . On DATE a similar request was made to ORG in GPE . The latter apparently never replied .

On DATE ORG received a fax from ORG reading as follows :

“ Regarding your request , please be informed that we are unable to identify the witnesses , based on the given data , therefore we are also unable to contact them .

Furthermore , we know nothing about the information indicated in your message saying that allegedly , the members of the MP of [ the ] NORP army served in the ORG camp in GPE in DATE .

In view of the above , we suggest [ y]ou contact ORG GPE and GPE through ORG .

Upon a request from the applicant ’s counsel the Chief of Police of GPE issued a note , on DATE , describing the efforts to get in contact with the CARDINAL witnesses . It read , inter alia , as follows :

( Translation )

[ The CARDINAL witnesses ] are either former prisoners in the camp [ GPE , GPE , GPE ] or NORP police officers / police soldiers [ C.J. , GPE , GPE ] and the director of the camp [ GPE ] . According to counsel , [ FAC ] is a former prisoner , which piece of information [ we ] can not confirm , or deny .

Information in the file concerning the persons in question is very sporadic and scant as they are merely briefly mentioned by their names by a few of the witnesses questioned . [ C.J. , GPE , GPE , GPE ] must be considered having committed criminal acts of violence in the camp .

On the basis of counsel ’s letter of DATE to ORG , to whom I have responded on an earlier occasion , I have again attempted to have the witnesses identified , cf . my enclosed note of DATE continued on CARDINAL DATE , although one will probably have to realise that the prospects of success are limited due to the fact that all the witnesses must be assumed to reside either in GPE or in a NORP dominated area of GPE .

Counsel has in my opinion no basis whatsoever for his remarks that the witnesses ‘ have a good knowledge of the conditions in the camp’ and will be able to ‘ contribute with information as to the circumstances surrounding the deaths of [ GPE and ORG as it is completely uncertain what they have observed - if anything at all . The value of testimonies from [ C.J. , GPE , GPE , GPE ] will in anticipation have to be distrusted as they very well may have participated in the violent acts in question or in other violent acts against the prisoners . It is in that respect notable that the written testimony from ... [ GPE ] , which counsel had the opportunity to read out [ in ORG ] ... appears untrustworthy and invented . The declaration was , it appears , given by [ PERSON ] at the request of [ the applicant ’s ] mother - in - law .

[ The Police of Roskilde ] have no knowledge about the former prisoners in the camp [ GPE , GPE , GPE and possibly FAC ] . It can hardly be ruled out that the said persons held a position in the camp similar to that of [ the applicant ] ( in charge of keeping order ) or enjoyed privileges similar to him , for which reason the credibility of their testimonies would be poor . In case of the persons in question being “ real ” prisoners it is plausible that a testimony from each of them would merely say that they did not observe any violence committed by [ the applicant ] against the prisoners . The value of such a statement would be very poor as the persons in question had a limited outlook from the buildings ... and a limited possibility of observing [ the applicant ] who was able to move freely around in the camp .

Thus , counsel has in no way rendered it probable that the requested examination of witnesses is required in order to clarify the matter ... However , as I have already mentioned I have again , through ORG , requested that the efforts to identify the witnesses be continued .

If the persons in question are identified I find it of the utmost importance that they give evidence in court in GPE as witness statements obtained in GPE or GPE in the circumstances hardly will have much probative force .

On DATE counsel sent a letter to the Prosecutor General reading , inter alia , as follows :

( Translation )

For your information I hereby enclose a copy of a letter of DATE from [ the aforementioned lawyer practising in GPE ] .

I draw your attention to the fact that the statements made by the witnesses in question are made in court without my presence . Thus , I have not had the opportunity to clarify the factual proposition , which the evidence tends to establish . Had I had that opportunity I would have made sure that [ the witnesses ] were asked about the deaths of [ GPE and GPE ] .

It is , however , evident from the material that it is possible to get in contact with the witnesses whom I have requested being heard .

The letter of DATE from the NORP lawyer reads inter alia :

( Translation )

“ Referring to your request of DATE ... ORG has requested the investigation judge at ORG to hear witnesses , and the witnesses [ PERSON , PERSON , and ORG ] have been heard . I forward the original transcript containing the testimonies .

The investigation judge ... will examine another CARDINAL witnesses , the testimonies of whom we will subsequently forward to you .

The testimony of PERSON reads , inter alia , as follows :

( Translation )

In [ the prison camp of PERSON ] I served as the director of [ the camp ] from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . I knew personally CARDINAL of the inmates , [ the applicant ] , and I am willing to declare under oath that he did not during the period in question , when he was in [ the camp ] , ill - treat or beat anyone , nor did he kill anyone . He worked in the kitchen as an assistant to the chef and I had as the director the monitoring function over [ the camp ] and he has , as I said , not beaten or killed anyone , nor has he in any way ill - treated anyone . If such things had happened I would have known as I was monitoring all inmates .

I further declare that no ill - treatment , fights or physical ill - treatment whatsoever took place in this [ camp ] , while I was the director of [ the camp ] .

The testimonies of PERSON , GPE , and further testimony given by C.J. , read in essence the same in that they maintained that they had not witnessed that the applicant had ill - treated other prisoners .

It appears that these testimonies were given in ORG on DATE , - except that of PERSON which was given on DATE an investigation judge and with a prosecutor being present . Before testifying , each witness were impressed with the duty to speak the truth and were told about the consequences of making false statements .

On DATE the police authorities in GPE received a radiogram from ORG reading as follows :

Concerning your message , please be advised that ... we were not able to find the mentioned persons and contact ... them .

These persons are in GPE and at this territory of our country ... because of consequences of war ... the legal authorities are not yet able to [ carry out their ] ... functions .

We also mention that these persons were indirectly involved in tragic events in camp “ Dretelj ” ... [ W]e advised you about these details earlier .

We suppose that these persons for that reason avoid to stay at [ the ] territory of our country .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel sent a letter to ORG , which reads as follows :

( Translation )

“ Referring to your letter of DATE I shall hereby address [ the note ] of CARDINAL DATE from the Chief of Police of GPE .

Of the CARDINAL witnesses I mention in my letter of DATE to ORG there is , through [ the NORP lawyer ] , established a contact to four , i.e. [ M.B. , C.J. , GPE and GPE ] . ... .

In the High Court ’s decision concerning the adjournment of the case in order to examine the CARDINAL witnesses nothing is said about the relevance of the witnesses for the case . ORG decision is solely reasoned by the difficulties which had been involved - and are presumed to continue to be involved - in getting in contact with the witnesses .

Already at an early stage the applicant wanted the hearing of the CARDINAL witnesses , whom he firmly believes can contribute with essential information , not least in order to illuminate the circumstances concerning the deaths of [ GPE and GPE ] .

The letters to [ the NORP lawyer ] show that it has been possible to get in contact with , so far , CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL witnesses and , therefore , to my mind a continued effort to call these witnesses can not be considered futile .

Furthermore , I refer to the possibility of having a court hearing of the witnesses in their home country with the participation of a NORP prosecutor and myself . Such a hearing can clarify whether the witnesses have any relevant information and , if so , what .

The remark made by the police that a number of the witnesses , whom I have requested be heard , possibly had a position in the camp similar to that of [ the applicant ] or privileges similar to his is in my opinion without substance .

I maintain , therefore , that the efforts to get in contact with the CARDINAL witnesses and obtain their testimony be continued .

From a letter of CARDINAL DATE from the Chief of Police of GPE to ORG it appears that the police had not then received any further information about the witnesses .

In reply to a letter from the applicant ’s counsel requesting further information relating to the deaths of GPE and GPE , the NORP lawyer replied , on DATE , inter alia , as follows :

( Translation )

The public prosecutor has informed me that [ the applicant ] ... was an ordinary prisoner and that , during his stay in [ the camp ] , he had no special authority .

As regards the death of [ GPE ] it has been established that he died on DATE and that he was hit in the head with a wooden club by a person named PERSON , a prisoner who was a NORP and it has been established that this person had been insane for DATE ... This piece of information can be confirmed by ORG .

In DATE the same , PERSON , ... hit [ PERSON ] and he died also in [ the camp ] from the strokes .

The accused in both cases , for killing [ GPE ] and [ PERSON ] , is the insane man ... PERSON and the case has been investigated by the judicial authorities .

The investigation judge at ORG has told me that they no longer have the competence to interrogate and supervise the defence for [ the applicant ] as there has been set up an ORG in GPE for war crimes committed in former GPE and as the national courts at the request of ORG in the GPE are obliged to initiate certain investigations .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . The judgment reads inter alia :

( Translation )

As regards the claim that ORG judgment be quashed and the case remitted to ORG , [ the applicant ] has argued that ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE not to adjourn the case in order to find and hear [ the CARDINAL witnesses ] , amounts to a procedural error pursuant to LAW and LAW , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW in conjunction with LAW ( d ) of the LAW . [ The applicant ] claims , furthermore , that ORG erred by not employing the special standard of proof adopted in the judgment ... , having regard to [ the applicant ’s ] mental state .

ORG reasoning :

As ORG agrees with the reasoning of ORG , in its decision of DATE , ORG finds that no procedural error has been committed by ORG by proceeding with the case on the basis of the testimonies in their possession , cf . Section CARDINAL of ORG . Nor has ORG erred in relation to the standard of proof adopted in judgment ... , which must be considered to express a general principle in criminal procedure that the accused must enjoy the benefit of all reasonable doubt . Thus , [ the applicant ’s ] claim that the judgment be quashed and the case remitted [ to ORG ] is rejected .

It is ordered :

ORG judgment is upheld .


CASE OF MITCHELL AND HOLLOWAY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

On DATE the applicants granted to a company now known as ORG ( “ GPE ” ) an option to purchase PERCENT of the share capital in ORG ( “ ORG ” ) for QUANTITY ( “ GBP ” ) a share , with a further option to purchase PERCENT at a price to be fixed by an agreed formula . On DATE the first lot of shares in ORG was purchased . Relations between GPE and the applicants subsequently deteriorated .

On DATE ORG and PERSON issued ORG proceedings against the applicants claiming , inter alia , damages for breach of contract . On DATE Buckingham exercised its call option on PERCENT of the shares of ORG , PERSON alleging that no further payment was due to the applicants given its outstanding claims against them .

NORP In DATE the second applicant was granted legal aid .

The plaintiffs finally served their statement of claim on CARDINAL DATE having received numerous extensions of time ( ordered by the court on the basis of the parties’ consent ) . The statement of claim ran to CARDINAL pages . It included many allegations of breaches of warranties in the option agreement and claims that the applicants owed ORG substantial sums of money which they had borrowed from ORG through ORG loans schemes .

The applicants served a short - form defence on DATE after CARDINAL extensions of the relevant time - limit granted by ORG following contested hearings . Further particulars of the defence were requested by the plaintiffs in DATE . At a directions hearing on DATE , a Master of the High Court , inter alia , allowed the applicants to amend their defence and to file a counterclaim , and ordered that the action be set down for hearing on or before DATE . This date was subsequently vacated by the parties’ agreement . On DATE the applicants were accorded until DATE to file the amended defence and counterclaim , and it was so filed . In DATE the first applicant was granted legal aid . The GPE reply and defence to the counterclaim was served on DATE , after an extension of time .

At the request of the applicants’ solicitors , on DATE ORG ordered that the GPE claim and the applicants’ counterclaim be set down for hearing . The relevant setting down notice was filed by the plaintiffs on DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG ordered the plaintiffs to file outstanding pleadings . By letter dated DATE , the applicants requested an expedited hearing from the Lord Chancellor ’s office . The letter of ORG dated DATE , in response , explained that the applicants could apply to ORG to advance the hearing but that the court was otherwise unable to bring the hearing date forward . It further explained that such delays often occurred given the number of cases waiting to be heard , in the light of the estimated hearing time ( then DATE ) and because a fixed hearing date had been requested .

In DATE and DATE the applicants were advised by solicitors and by junior and ORG that an application for an expedited trial was unlikely to succeed as inter alia there were no grounds for granting the applicants priority over other litigants . On DATE the plaintiffs filed outstanding pleadings ( further and better particulars of the statement of claim ) and in DATE and DATE discovery of documents took place in the case .

On DATE counsel for all parties submitted an increased estimated hearing time of DATE . On DATE the hearing date was fixed for DATE . ORG later confirmed in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE that the DATE delay in such cases was “ not untypical ” and that the reason was that the Chancery lists were “ extremely congested ” .

On DATE ORG was ordered ( on its own petition ) to be wound up .

On DATE , due to the late discovery of the plaintiff ’s documents ( some CARDINAL boxes ) , the applicants applied for an adjournment of the hearing date and for an expedited hearing date thereafter . Both requests were granted and the hearing date was re - scheduled for DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicants served further amendments to their defence and counterclaim .

The hearing began on DATE and lasted DATE . Since ORG was in liquidation and did not appear , the judge dismissed ORG ’s action at the outset . PERSON applied to make substantial amendments to its pleadings and its claims were adjourned . Only the applicants’ counterclaim was therefore examined . Judgment ( CARDINAL pages ) was delivered by PERSON on DATE in favour of the applicants in the sum of GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL plus costs .

The execution of that judgment was stayed by order of ORG on DATE pending the lodging of a notice of appeal . On DATE ORG made an order for security for costs against GPE and on DATE PERSON lodged an appeal . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON ’s claims were dismissed by consent and costs were awarded to the applicants . The stay was partially lifted , allowing the applicants to pursue execution of a small part of the judgment . On DATE a High Court Master made a provisional charging order over the property of GPE in the sum of the judgment .

On DATE creditor banks appointed administrative receivers in respect of GPE . On CARDINAL DATE the High Court Master confirmed the charge on GPE ’s property in the amount of the judgment and of the interest and legal costs accrued since the judgment . On DATE PERSON withdrew its pending appeal since the receivers did not wish to pursue it . The appeal was therefore dismissed by ORG on DATE and costs were awarded to the applicants . The stay was also lifted .

In DATE ORG assessed the applicants’ costs ( including those of the appeal but less the periods for which they were legally aided ) at GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL approximately .

Given the appointment of administrative receivers to GPE , the applicants investigated how to achieve priority for their judgment over unsecured and preferential creditors of GPE , and it was considered that the judgment could be enforced against the intra - group indebtedness of certain subsidiaries of GPE in GPE ( “ GPE ” ) .

In DATE the applicants therefore had the judgment registered in GPE . In DATE they issued proceedings in the GPE to garnishee funds owed to GPE by its GPE subsidiaries . On DATE a circuit court in GPE made an order by which MONEY of those subsidiaries’ funds were held in court as security for the judgment debt in GPE .

On DATE ORG , on the application of GPE ’s administrative receivers for a winding up order , appointed provisional liquidators to take over its affairs . In DATE those provisional liquidators obtained from the GPE courts a provisional discharge of the order garnisheeing the subsidiaries’ funds . That provisional order was subject to the courts in the GPE determining whether the latter would permit the applicants to enforce their judgment debt ahead of the existing secured and preferential creditors of GPE .

The applicants therefore issued new proceedings ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) on DATE in ORG in GPE to have determined the issue identified by the GPE courts . Pointing to the delay in the determination of their claim against GPE in the substantive proceedings , they requested ORG to exercise its discretion to give them priority over the secured and preferential creditors of GPE .

On DATE a compulsory winding up order of GPE was obtained which confirmed the provisional liquidators in office .

On DATE ORG ordered , on the basis of the parties’ consent , that the jurisdiction issue be dealt with as a preliminary matter . On DATE ORG found that it did not have jurisdiction . A notice of appeal was issued on DATE and leave to appeal was granted on DATE . On DATE ORG found that ORG had jurisdiction and remitted the case to it . ( PERSON and another v. PERSON and another , ORG plc [ DATE ] CARDINAL BCLC CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicants requested that their application be certified as fit for a speedy trial and that application was granted on DATE . ORG heard the matter again on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON handed down ORG judgment . He found that he could not prefer the judgment debt of the applicants over the secured and preferential creditors of GPE . He described the “ lamentable history ” of the proceedings and was critical of the conduct of those proceedings by PERSON and their legal representatives , referring to their “ highly successful spoiling tactics ” , to the “ carefully dilatory conduct of the action before DATE ” and to their “ extremely overdue ” statement of claim pointing out , in this context , that “ if litigation is about the obtaining of justice at a fair trial it is equally clear that that process was wholly obstructed ” . A notice of appeal was filed on DATE .

On DATE ORG heard the appeal and on DATE it confirmed the judgment of ORG ( PERSON and another v. FAC plc ( in liq ) and others , ORG plc ( in liq ) ( no CARDINAL ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL ) . ORG also referred to the “ delaying tactics adopted in the litigation by PERSON and its solicitors ” which “ may have amounted to , or come close to , abuse of process ” . It went on :

“ The civil justice system has unfortunately failed to give [ the applicants ] prompt relief for their complaints , and their eventual victory before PERSON has become a very hollow victory . Nevertheless , there was in our judgment no substantial flaw in the way in which PERSON exercised his discretion . ”

ORG also refused leave to appeal to ORG . The application for leave to appeal to ORG ( filed on DATE ) was rejected by that body on DATE .

The applicants finally recovered from the liquidators of GPE MONEY CARDINAL,CARDINAL after payment of their costs .

The High Court possesses an inherent jurisdiction to dismiss any action for “ want of prosecution ” by the plaintiff and an action is liable to be so dismissed where the plaintiff has been guilty of contumelious default or where there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay causing prejudice to the defendant .

It also has an inherent jurisdiction to strike out an action on the grounds that it is an abuse of the process of the ORG . This latter power was supplemented by LAW rule CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG ( “ RSC ” ) which provided for an express power to strike out any pleading or an endorsement of any writ on the grounds , inter alia , that it may prejudice , embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action , or is otherwise an abuse of process of the ORG .

Order CARDINAL rule CARDINAL of the ORG provided that , where a plaintiff failed to serve a statement of claim on a defendant , the latter could apply to the court after the relevant time period passed for an order to dismiss the action . The court could dismiss the action or make such order as it thought fit .

Order CARDINAL rule CARDINAL ) of the ORG provided for action to be taken where the plaintiff failed to set down an action for hearing within the period stipulated by the court : the defendant could either set the case down for hearing or could apply to the court to dismiss the action for want of prosecution . Again , the court could dismiss the action or make such other order as it thought fit .

A party to proceedings could also apply to a Master or judge of ORG for an order that the hearing of a case be expedited .


Preliminary objection dismissed (applicability);Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (global)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Christos Rozakis;Françoise Tulkens;Giovanni Bonello;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Kristaq Traja;Lech Garlicki;Mark Villiger;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Snejana Botoucharova;Stanislav Pavlovschi

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . At the material time he was the Head of ORG .

On DATE CARDINAL police officers ( NORP , GPE , GPE and GPE ) arrested CARDINAL persons suspected of offences related to the parliamentary elections ; CARDINAL of them was also suspected of being the leader of a criminal gang . Later the suspects were released from detention and complained to ORG of ill - treatment and illegal detention by the QUANTITY police officers . As a result of their complaint , a criminal investigation was initiated against the police officers on charges of , inter alia , ill - treatment and unlawful detention .

In DATE the QUANTITY police officers wrote letters , which they signed jointly , to President PERSON , Prime Minister PERSON and the Deputy Speaker of ORG , Mr Mişin , seeking protection from prosecution . They set out their views on the criminal proceedings and complained that the actions of ORG were abusive . They asked for the legality of the criminal charges that had been brought against them to be verified . On DATE Mr Mişin forwarded the letter he had received , with an accompanying note , to ORG . The note was written on the official headed paper of the ORG and was not marked as being confidential . It stated as follows :

“ Dear PERSON ,

A question arises after reading this letter : is the Deputy Prosecutor General fighting crime or the police ? This issue is made even more pressing by the fact that the policemen concerned are from one of the best teams in ORG , whose activity is now being blocked as a result of the efforts of employees of ORG . I ask you personally to intervene in this case and solve it in strict compliance with the law . ”

NORP In DATE PERSON visited the ORG where he discussed , inter alia , the problem of the undue pressure some public officials were putting on law - enforcement bodies in respect of pending criminal proceedings . The President made a call to fight corruption and asked law - enforcement officers to disregard any attempts by public officials to put them under pressure . The declarations of the President were made public by the media .

On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings against the police officers were discontinued .

DATE after PERSON made his call to fight corruption , the applicant sent to a newspaper , ORG , copies of CARDINAL letters ( “ the letters ” ) that had been received by ORG .

The first was the note written by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The second had been written by PERSON , a deputy minister in ORG , and was addressed to a deputy prosecutor general . It was written on the official headed paper of ORG and was not marked confidential . It stated , inter alia :

“ ... Police Major PERSON [ one of the CARDINAL officers , see paragraph CARDINAL above ] was convicted on CARDINAL DATE ... of offences under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL [ illegal detention endangering life or health or causing physical suffering ] , CARDINAL § CARDINAL [ abuse of power accompanied by acts of violence , the use of a firearm or torture ] and CARDINAL § CARDINAL [ extracting a confession by acts of violence and insults ] of LAW and sentenced to a fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MONEY ) . Under section CARDINAL of LAW , he was exempted from paying the fine .

... on DATE , Major PERSON was reinstated in his post at ORG . ”

On DATE ORG published an article entitled “ PERSON intimidating prosecutors ” . The article stated , inter alia :

“ At DATE , during a meeting at FAC , the President called on law - enforcement institutions to cooperate in the fight against organised crime and corruption and asked them to ignore telephone calls from senior public officials concerning cases that were pending before them .

The President ’s initiative is not accidental . The phenomenon has become very widespread , especially during DATE , and has been the subject of debate in the mass media and in international organisations .

Recently the press reported on the case of the NORP Parliamentarian PERSON , who had attempted to influence a criminal investigation in respect of an old friend and high - ranking official at ORG who had been caught red - handed . However , no legal action was taken . ...

Also , the press reported that ORG had requested ORG to sack CARDINAL prosecutors , ORG , involved in the investigation into the disappearance of the Chief of ORG , GPE , apparently after they had found evidence implicating officials of ORG in wrongdoing .

The results of the internal investigation into the activities of these CARDINAL prosecutors are not yet known . However , sources at ORG have told this newspaper that even though ORG have not been found guilty , they have been asked to leave at the insistence of someone in authority .

Now , while the declarations of the President concerning trading in influence are still fresh on peoples’ minds , we reveal a new investigation concerning high - ranking officials .

The Deputy Speaker of ORG is attempting to protect CARDINAL police officers who are under criminal investigation . ORG affinity with policemen is not new , since his background is in the police force . Our sources stated that this is not the only case in which ORG has intervened on behalf of policemen in trouble with the law .

ORG initiated criminal proceedings against CARDINAL police officers ... after they had used force during the unlawful arrest of a group of people .

... [ The ] police officers assaulted the detainees by punching and kicking them ... Furthermore , it was found that one of the officers had made false statements in the police report on the arrest ... The QUANTITY police officers were also being investigated for forcibly extracting confessions ...

The investigation lasted for DATE . When it was almost over ... the police officers started to seek protection from those in authority .

On DATE the police officers wrote letters to President PERSON , Prime Minister PERSON and the Deputy Speaker of ORG , PERSON , asking them to intervene to end the investigation , which they said was unwarranted .

The first to react to their letter was the Deputy Speaker of ORG , PERSON . On DATE ... he sent the Prosecutor General a letter in which , in a commanding tone , he asked him personally to intervene in the case of the CARDINAL policemen . Even though he instructed ORG to get involved in this case ‘ in strict compliance with the law’ , the tone of the letter clearly shows that he was giving an order for the case to be examined very quickly .

As a result of the intervention of the ORG ’s most influential figures , ORG discontinued the criminal investigation against the policemen and ordered an internal investigation into the correctness of the decision to bring criminal proceedings against them ...

... Sources from ORG confirmed that officer ORG [ one of the CARDINAL policemen ] had [ previously ] been convicted by ORG , and ordered to pay a criminal fine of CARDINAL NORP lei . In accordance with LAW , he was exempted from paying the fine . Moreover , on DATE ... he was reinstated at ORG .

Without commenting on the judgment of ORG , we wish to make some remarks . PERSON was convicted on the basis of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of abuse of power , forcibly extracting confessions and unlawful detention . For these offences , LAW lays down sentences of one to DATE imprisonment . He was only given a fine .

Moreover , ORG reinstated him while he was still under investigation . ”

NORP The newspaper article was accompanied by photographs of the letters signed by ORG and PERSON .

On an unspecified date the applicant was requested by ORG to explain how the CARDINAL letters had come to be published by the press .

On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG , admitting that he had sent the CARDINAL letters to the newspaper . He stated , inter alia :

“ My act was a reaction to the declarations made by the [ President ] concerning the fight against corruption and trading in influence . I did this because I was convinced that I was helping to fight the scourge of trading in influence ( trafic de influenţă ) , a phenomenon which has become increasingly common of late .

I believed and still believe that if each of us were to help uncover those who abuse their position in order to obstruct the proper administration of justice , the situation would change for the better .

Further , I consider that the letters I handed over to ORG were not secret . My intention was not to do a disservice to ORG , but on the contrary to create a positive image of it . ”

On an unspecified date a prosecutor , ORG , who was suspected of having furnished the letters to the applicant , was dismissed .

On DATE the applicant wrote a further letter to ORG , informing him that the letters had not been obtained through ORG He added :

“ If the manner in which I acted is considered a breach of the internal regulations , then I am the one who should bear responsibility .

I acted in compliance with ORG , LAW and LAW . I believed that the declarations of the [ President ] decrying acts of corruption and trading in influence were sincere . To my great regret , I note that ORG has elevated a letter from a public official ( which in my opinion is a clear example of direct political involvement in the administration of justice ) to the status of ORG secret . This fact , coupled with ORG dismissal , concerns me and causes me seriously to doubt that the rule of law and human rights are respected in GPE . ”

On DATE the applicant was dismissed . The letter of dismissal stated , inter alia , that the letters disclosed by the applicant to the newspaper were secret and that he had failed to consult the heads of other departments of ORG before handing them over , in breach of CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG seeking reinstatement . He argued , inter alia , that the letters he had disclosed to the newspaper were not classified as secret in accordance with the law ; that he was not obliged to consult the heads of other departments before contacting the press ; that he had given the letters to the newspaper at the newspaper ’s request ; and that his dismissal constituted a breach of his right to freedom of expression .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action . It stated , inter alia , that the applicant had breached his obligations under paragraph CARDINAL of LAW by not consulting other departmental heads and under paragraph CARDINAL of the Regulations by disclosing secret documents .

NORP The applicant appealed . He relied on the same arguments as in his initial court action . He also argued that the disclosure of the letters to the newspaper had not in any way prejudiced his employer .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on the same grounds as ORG . Referring to the applicant ’s submissions concerning freedom of expression , ORG stated that obtaining information through the abuse of one ’s position was not part of freedom of expression ( dreptul la exprimare nu presupune dobândirea informaţiei abuziv , folosind atribuţiile PERSON ) .

Neither ORG nor the Deputy Speaker of ORG , Mr Mişin , appear to have contested the authenticity of the letters published in ORG or the truthfulness of the information contained in the article of DATE or to have taken any further action .

Since ORG did not react in the manner ORG had anticipated after the publication of the article on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the latter initiated court proceedings for an order requiring ORG to initiate a criminal investigation into ORG alleged interference in an ongoing criminal investigation . The newspaper argued , inter alia , that , under LAW , newspaper articles and letters published in newspapers could serve as a basis for the institution of criminal proceedings and that ORG was under a duty to order an investigation .

The newspaper ’s action was dismissed by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE . The courts found , inter alia , that the newspaper did not have legal standing to lodge a complaint and that , in any event , the article of DATE was merely a newspaper article expressing a personal point of view , not an official request to initiate a criminal investigation .

On DATE ORG published a follow - up to its article of DATE entitled “ ORG launches crackdown on prosecutors ” . The piece described the events that had followed the publication of the first article and stated that ORG had been infuriated by the article and had ordered ORG to identify and punish those responsible for disclosing his note to the press . ORG had acquiesced and declared war on subordinates who refused to tolerate political intervention in the workings of the criminal - justice system . The article stated that the actions of ORG were in line with the general trend that had been observed in DATE of replacing people with considerable professional experience who were not prepared to comply with the rules instituted by the new government with people from dubious backgrounds . It claimed that sources from ORG had told the newspaper that ORG had received systematic indications from ORG and the advisers to the President concerning who should be employed or dismissed . In DATE , CARDINAL experienced prosecutors had been dismissed from ORG .

The article also gave an account of the applicant ’s dismissal as a result of pressure from ORG , and stated that sources at ORG had told the newspaper that the ORG had received CARDINAL of letters from ORG and PERSON ( another high - ranking public official ) in connection with ongoing criminal investigations .

According to the newspaper ’s sources , CARDINAL prosecutors had been dismissed at the insistence of ORG because they had discovered incriminating material against him during an investigation into the disappearance of an important businessman , PERSON After their dismissal that criminal investigation had been brought to an end .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Labour Code provided at the material time that employees of the central public authorities could be dismissed for a serious breach of their professional duties .

Paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG of ORG read as follows :

“ CARDINAL ORG shall plan and organise , in conjunction with the editorial offices of newspapers , magazines and radio and television stations and with the heads of other departments of ORG , items for publication in the mass media concerning the activities of ORG .

CARDINAL [ The Head of the Press Department ] is responsible for the quality of the published materials , the veracity of the information received and supplied , and for preserving confidentiality in accordance with the legislation of GPE . ”

At the material time neither LAW nor GPE legislation contained any provision concerning the disclosure by employees of acts of wrongdoing committed at their place of work .

The Criminal Code at the material time contained in LAW a provision prohibiting any interference with a criminal investigation . It stated :

“ Any interference with a criminal investigation , namely the illegal exercise of influence in any form over the person carrying out the investigation ... shall be punished with imprisonment of DATE or a fine of CARDINAL times the minimum wage . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided at the material time that , inter alia , information about offences contained in newspaper articles or notes or letters published in a newspaper could constitute a ground for a prosecutor to commence a criminal investigation .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that , at the investigation stage , materials from a criminal file could not be disclosed except with the authorisation of the person in charge of the investigation .

According to LAW , prosecutors are independent .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows .

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG :

– shall exercise its functions independently of the public authorities ... in accordance with the law ; ...

( CARDINAL ) ... Prosecutors and investigators are precluded from membership of any political party or other socio - political organisations and shall only be accountable before the law ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Prosecutor General shall :

( i ) be appointed by ORG on a proposal by the Speaker of ORG for a term of office of DATE ; and

( ii ) have a senior deputy and ordinary deputies , who shall be appointed by ORG on the basis of his or her proposals ... ”

LAW requires civil servants or government bodies to reply to written requests within DATE . If they lack competence , they must forward the request to the competent body within DATE .

The relevant provisions of the Status of Members of Parliament Act of DATE provide :

“ Members of parliament shall have the right to contact any ORG body , non - governmental organisation or official about problems pertaining to the activity of a member of parliament and to participate in their examination . ”

“ Members of parliament , in their capacity as representatives of the supreme legislative authority , shall have the right to demand the immediate cessation of any unlawful conduct . In case of necessity they may request official bodies or persons to intervene to bring an end to the unlawful conduct ... ”

NORP The relevant part of the DATE report of ORG ( ICJ ) on the rule of law in GPE stated :

“ ... The mission to GPE carried out by ORG ) has concluded that , despite efforts by the post - independence NORP government to reform its system of justice , the rule of law suffers serious shortcomings that must be addressed . The ICJ / CIJL found that the breakdown in the separation of powers has again resulted in a judiciary that is largely submissive to the dictates of the government . The practice of ‘ telephone justice’ has returned . The executive is able to substantially influence judicial appointments through ORG that lacks independence . Beyond allegations of corruption , the NORP judiciary has substantially regressed in DATE , resulting in court decisions that can pervert the course of justice when the interests of the government are at stake ... ”

The DATE ORG report on GPE stated , inter alia , that :

“ ... In DATE , the principle of the rule of law was under challenge in GPE ... Also affecting the fragile balance of power among the legislative , executive , and judicial branches of government in DATE were a series of judicial nominations based on loyalty to the ruling party , the dismissal of the ombudsman , and attempts to limit the independence of ORG .

In DATE ] , ORG ( MAJ ) signalled that the government had started a process of ‘ mass PERSON in the judicial sector . CARDINAL judges lost their jobs ...

The situation worsened when President PERSON refused to prolong the mandates of CARDINAL other judges ... ”

The DATE report by Open Society Justice Initiative and ORG GPE stated , inter alia , the following :

“ ... there has been instituted the practice of ‘ taking under control’ certain files , presenting interest to the NORP leaders or to state authorities . This practice implies the following : ORG ( ORG ) or ORG ( both institutions are chaired by the same person ) receives instructions from the President ’s office , from government or ORG , referring to the concerned case and required solution ( such instructions also exist in oral form ) . Following these instructions , ORG or ORG addresses directly to the chairman of the court , where the particular case is being considered with the order to ‘ take under personal control’ the examination of CARDINAL or other particular file . The so - called ‘ taking under control’ in fact represents direct instructions on solutions for specific cases . ”

The relevant provision of ORG no . CARDINAL of ORG , which was ratified by GPE on DATE , reads :

“ The following , inter alia , shall not constitute valid reasons for termination :

( c ) the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violation of laws or regulations or recourse to competent administrative authorities ;

The relevant provision of LAW , which was adopted by ORG by resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE and which has been in force since DATE , reads :

“ ORG shall consider incorporating into its domestic legal system appropriate measures to provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with [ the ] Convention . ”

At the date on which this judgment was adopted , the LAW had been signed by CARDINAL countries and ratified or acceded to by CARDINAL countries , not including GPE .

The relevant provision of ORG LAW of DATE reads :

“ Preamble

The member ORG and the other GPE signatory hereto ,

Emphasising that corruption threatens the rule of law , democracy and human rights , undermines good governance , fairness and social justice , distorts competition , hinders economic development and endangers the stability of democratic institutions and the moral foundations of society ;

Have agreed as follows :

Each ORG shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to provide effective and appropriate protection for :

( a ) those who report the criminal offences established in accordance with Articles CARDINAL to DATE or otherwise cooperate with the investigating or prosecuting authorities ;

( b ) witnesses who give testimony concerning these offences . ”

ORG to this convention states as follows with regard to LAW :

“ CARDINAL . ... the word ‘ witnesses’ refers to persons who possess information relevant to criminal proceedings concerning corruption offences as contained in ORG CARDINAL of the LAW and includes whistle - blowers . ”

This convention was signed by GPE on DATE and came into force in respect of GPE on DATE .

“ Preamble

The member ORG , the other GPE and ORG , signatories hereto ,

Emphasising that corruption represents a major threat to the rule of law , democracy and human rights , fairness and social justice , hinders economic development and endangers the proper and fair functioning of market economies ;

Recognising the adverse financial consequences of corruption to individuals , companies and GPE , as well as international institutions ;

Have agreed as follows :

Each ORG shall provide in its internal law for appropriate protection against any unjustified sanction for employees who have reasonable grounds to suspect corruption and who report in good faith their suspicion to responsible persons or authorities . ”

ORG to this convention states with regard to LAW

“ CARDINAL . This Article deals with the need for each ORG to take the necessary measures to protect employees , who report in good faith and on the basis of reasonable grounds their suspicions on corrupt practices or behaviours , from being victimised in any way .

As regards the necessary measures to protect employees provided for by LAW , the legislation of Parties could , for instance , provide that employers be required to pay compensation to employees who are victims of unjustified sanctions .

DATE . In practice corruption cases are difficult to detect and investigate and employees or colleagues ( whether public or private ) of the persons involved are often the first persons who find out or suspect that something is wrong .

The ‘ appropriate protection against any unjustified sanction’ implies that , on the basis of [ the ] Convention , any sanction against employees based on the ground that they had reported an act of corruption to persons or authorities responsible for receiving such reports , will not be justified . Reporting should not be considered as a breach of the duty of confidentiality . Examples of unjustified sanctions may be a dismissal or demotion of these persons or otherwise acting in a way which limits progress in their career .

CARDINAL .

Therefore the appropriate protection which Parties are required to take should encourage employees to report their suspicions to the responsible person or authority . Indeed , in many cases , persons who have information of corruption activities do not report them mainly because of fear of the possible negative consequences .

As far as employees are concerned , this protection provided covers only the cases where they have reasonable ground to report their suspicion and report them in good faith . In other words , it applies only to genuine cases and not to malicious ones . ”

The relevant provisions of ORG adopted by ORG DATE ( Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) read :

“ Having due regard for the right of access to official information , the public official has a duty to treat appropriately , with all necessary confidentiality , all information and documents acquired by him or her in the course of , or as a result of , his or her employment . ”

NORP The public official should report to the competent authorities any evidence , allegation or suspicion of unlawful or criminal activity relating to the public service coming to his or her knowledge in the course of , or arising from , his or her employment . The investigation of the reported facts shall be carried out by the competent authorities .

NORP The public administration should ensure that no prejudice is caused to a public official who reports any of the above on reasonable grounds and in good faith . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant joined GPE ( GPE ) . He practised as a lawyer until DATE , when he left for GPE . As a result , the NORP authorities deprived him of his NORP citizenship and required him to notify ORG that he had ceased his professional activities and to transfer to his colleagues the cases on which he was then working .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG acknowledged the applicant ’s request to cease his professional activities and decided to cancel the applicant ’s membership . According to the applicant , he did not request that his membership of the Bar be cancelled .

In DATE the applicant became a member of ORG and practised there as an attorney until DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant applied to ORG to be registered as a lawyer there . On DATE the Chairman of ORG ( PERSON DATE “ the UAR ” ) sent him the following reply :

“ Until a new law concerning lawyers is passed , we can only order the annulment of ORG decision to cancel your membership , so that you may resume your membership of that bar , but you will be deemed ineligible to practise until you return to this country . ... Indeed , the current law does not allow you to be a member of CARDINAL bars , irrespective of the fact that CARDINAL such bar is in this country and the other is abroad . ”

The Chairman of the ORG confirmed his position in the course of subsequent meetings with the applicant in DATE .

In DATE , after his NORP citizenship had been restored , the applicant returned to live in GPE . On DATE he applied to ORG for the annulment of the DATE decision , on the ground that he had never requested the cancellation of his ORG membership . He also applied for reinstatement as a lawyer and to be removed from the list of lawyers who were ineligible to practise as he had been a member of another Bar .

On DATE ORG annulled the DATE decision to remove the applicant ’s name from the Bar roll but ordered his re - registration on the list of lawyers ineligible to practise , as he was still a member of another bar .

DATE the applicant offered investment advice to several multinational corporate clients investing in GPE .

In DATE he founded a company , PERSON , subsequently renamed ORG , of which he was the sole shareholder and whose main field of activity was business and management consultancy .

On DATE ORG decided to remove the applicant ’s ineligible status and to register his name on the list of practising lawyers with effect from DATE .

From DATE until DATE , given that he had been reinstated by ORG , he paid DATE Bar fees and ORG fees amounting to CARDINAL NORP lei ( MONEY [ “ EUR ” ] , according to the average exchange rate for the relevant period ) .

On DATE , in accordance with LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and the LAW governing ORG , the applicant submitted an application to ORG for a transfer from FAC . He did not receive any response .

On DATE the ORG decided that , in accordance with LAW ( j ) of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerning the organisation and practice of the legal profession , the applicant ’s reinstatement as a lawyer fell within its own field of competence and not that of the Bar . The ORG thus found that ORG had acted ultra vires in taking its decision of CARDINAL DATE . Furthermore , it declared that ORG decision of DATE , annulling the applicant ’s ineligible status , was illegal , having regard to the fact that it had been based on the unlawful decision of DATE .

It appears that the ORG ’s decision of DATE was never notified either to the applicant or to ORG . The decision was not communicated to him until DATE , when he was involved in other proceedings before ORG .

On DATE , following a communication from ORG , ORG , head of a department of ORG , sent a letter to the Chairman of the ORG pointing out that the applicant ’s re - registration with the Bar in DATE was an act of reparation , that he was the legal adviser for GPE for a number of important companies from GPE mentioned in the letter , and that the best possible ways of resolving his case should be considered in the interests of good relations between the CARDINAL countries .

On DATE , having received no response to his application for a transfer , the applicant submitted a renewed application to ORG for leave to be transferred from FAC .

As he did not receive any response , on DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG , in accordance with LAW ( Law no . PERSON ) . He asked the court to establish that he had a right to be transferred from ORG to GPE , to compel the latter to allow his application for a transfer and to issue a decision authorising him to practise as a lawyer in a private law firm .

Following an application by ORG for a change of venue ( declinare a competentei ) , ORG referred the case to ORG .

During the proceedings , and following several hearings , ORG invited the applicant to attend a meeting organised by ORG on DATE . The applicant was informed at this meeting that ORG was willing to consider his application for a transfer , provided that he clarified his status with the ORG . He was then told that the ORG had annulled his reinstatement as a member of ORG . The applicant requested ORG to notify him in writing about its position in respect of his application for a transfer . On DATE ORG sent the applicant a letter stating the position which it had expressed orally on DATE and informing him of the ORG ’s decision of DATE .

At the suggestion of the PERSON of ORG , the applicant requested the ORG on DATE “ to clarify and resolve ” his situation and to advise him of the manner in which his request could be met .

In DATE the applicant applied to ORG requesting it to invite the ORG to join as a defendant the proceedings he had brought against ORG . He pointed out that he would be seeking to compel the ORG to disclose its decision of DATE . After several hearings , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG submitted a copy of its decision of DATE to the court .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with the ORG requesting the annulment of that decision and confirmation of his status as a lawyer and a member of ORG , by way of reparation for an abuse committed under the communist regime . He also referred to his letter of DATE to the ORG , pointing out that no answer had been given to his request that the ORG take the necessary decisions in order to clarify his situation .

On DATE the ORG confirmed its decision of DATE , stating , inter alia , that the applicant had “ committed fraud as he had practised as a lawyer all this time without legal authorisation ” . No information was given to the applicant as to the manner in which his status could be clarified in order to practise as a legally registered lawyer . Similar statements concerning alleged fraud on the applicant ’s part were made by the ORG during the proceedings before ORG .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the ORG before ORG seeking the annulment of the decision of DATE . In his application , he submitted that : following the entry into force of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , the ORG had had no power to annul ORG decision of DATE ; that , under LAW no . CARDINAL , its decision of DATE was invalid since it had been delivered after the DATE period prescribed by that provision and since only the courts had had jurisdiction to annul in DATE a decision taken in DATE ; and that , as regards the merits of his application , which the court was expressly invited to examine , in the absence of specific regulations indicating where to apply to remedy an unlawful administrative decision deleting him from the GPE list of lawyers , he had acted in good faith , according to the principles of administrative law , when he had lodged his application with ORG in DATE . The applicant pointed out that his administrative application of DATE to the ORG had not constituted a remedy . That case was joined to the proceedings against ORG .

On DATE , during a hearing before ORG , the applicant alleged that the decision of DATE had been unlawful since he had not applied to have his registration as a lawyer cancelled and , consequently , ORG had been entitled to adopt its decision of CARDINAL DATE in order to redress the abuse committed in DATE .

The applicant submitted a number of questions to be answered by the ORG . The ORG replied to the question whether the fact that he had applied to ORG in DATE for the annulment of the DATE decision was unlawful : it considered that the applicant could have lodged such an application with the Bar , but that the decision to be taken fell within the ORG ’s exclusive field of competence . The ORG conceded that the legal basis of its decision of DATE was LAW ( j ) of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . As regards the DATE Bar and ORG fees paid by the applicant , the ORG replied that these were insignificant and that , according to the letter of DATE from ORG , the applicant provided legal services to many companies , but he had not established an office for that purpose , nor had he paid the PERCENT fees to the ORG social - security fund , thus committing fraud and unlawfully practising the profession of lawyer .

At the same hearing , suspecting that the decision of DATE had been fabricated at DATE , namely during the proceedings before ORG , the applicant also requested that the ORG ’s original ORG be disclosed .

On DATE the court acceded to the applicant ’s request . However , on DATE it reversed its decision of DATE and ruled that the ORG did not have to disclose the original register . The court declared that , in the absence of a criminal complaint alleging forgery lodged by the applicant against the ORG , it was satisfied that the decision purportedly given on DATE had indeed been given on that date . The court ’s new position was due mainly to the production , by the ORG , of CARDINAL photocopies , CARDINAL being of an undated excerpt of the TIME of a meeting of DATE describing the procedure leading to the impugned decision , and the other being of another page of those minutes with no link to the applicant ’s case . Both these pages bore the stamp of the ORG and the signature of its secretary with the words “ certified copy ” . It is not clear from these documents how many pages the TIME of the meeting of DATE amounted to in all , who signed the TIME or who voted during that meeting .

The applicant formally objected to that ruling , insisting that it was not his intention to prolong the procedure by lodging a criminal complaint and that the register could easily be disclosed , given that the ORG shared the same building as the court . The applicant ’s objection was dismissed .

On DATE , during a hearing before ORG , the applicant replied to questions submitted by the ORG . He contended that he had not provided legal services since he had come back to GPE , that he had not practised as a lawyer with an established office and that , consequently , he had not paid PERCENT of his income required by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application , holding that , pursuant to LAW no . ORG , ORG had acted ultra vires in taking its decision of CARDINAL DATE , and that , according to LAW ( “ the Rules ” ) issued by the ORG in DATE , the latter had been entitled to annul the decisions of local bars on grounds of illegality . As regards the fact that in DATE the applicant had lodged an application with GPE , considering himself entitled to be reinstated as a lawyer by the body that had unlawfully cancelled his membership with the Bar in DATE , the ORG noted that the DATE decision had been adopted on the basis of a request by the applicant himself .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the aforementioned decision of ORG , submitting that that court had not taken into account all the arguments and the evidence submitted . Accordingly , in his grounds of appeal he submitted that the court had erroneously found that he had been at fault for not lodging an application with the competent body in DATE for re - registration as a lawyer , given that he had applied in DATE , on the basis of Law no . DATE , to the body that had taken the unlawful and politically motivated administrative decision of CARDINAL DATE , although he had not requested to be deleted from the Bar ’s list of lawyers . Considering that he should not have had to request to be readmitted to the legal profession because he had been excluded from the ORG by a decision without any legal basis , the applicant had lodged the application with the issuing body , namely ORG , as there was no provision for specific proceedings to redress the effects of such unlawful administrative decisions . The applicant also submitted that , pursuant to the aforementioned LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which repealed Legislative Decree no . DATE , the ORG had no longer been competent in DATE to annul Bar decisions , and that LAW could not have supplemented that law . The applicant underlined that the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE had been illegal because the ORG had been time – barred in DATE , according to PERSON no . ORG , and because the legal basis for the decision , namely Legislative Decree no . ORG , had been repealed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

In his grounds of appeal and also in his written observations to ORG , the applicant added that , according to the documents in the file , the ORG had known since DATE that he had been registered as a lawyer by ORG in DATE , and that , in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the ORG had at that time not only had the power but also the duty to review and possibly annul the decision of CARDINAL DATE by ORG . The applicant referred to the ORG ’s reply to the questions of CARDINAL DATE and concluded that , even supposing that the ORG should have been consulted in DATE by ORG on his re - registration as a lawyer , he was not to blame for lodging the application with that GPE or for the latter ’s or the ORG ’s failure to follow the proper procedure . The applicant requested the court to consider whether it was normal in these circumstances that he could not practise his profession in GPE , and asked it to annul the ORG ’s decision of DATE and to allow his transfer to ORG .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It held that , in DATE , Legislative Decree no . ORG had vested in ORG the exclusive authority to determine applications relating to the admission or readmission of lawyers to the Bar , and that the provisions of LAW ( g ) and ( i ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL should be interpreted as conserving these prerogatives .

On the basis of LAW , the court rejected the applicant ’s submission that PERSON no . PERSON had removed the ORG ’s powers under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL to annul Bar decisions , conceding nevertheless that in the text of this law such a power was not expressly maintained . As to the time within which the ORG had been entitled to annul the applicant ’s registration with ORG in DATE , ORG held that , given the issuing body ’s lack of jurisdiction , the annulment could have been decided upon at any time . Finally , ORG pointed out that the annulment of the applicant ’s registration with ORG on the ground of illegality did not remove his right to apply to the competent authority to decide on his application for reregistration as a member of the Bar .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant applied to ORG for registration as a lawyer registered with a foreign Bar , but to date he has not received any reply in spite of the fact that , according to him , in the interim ORG has approved the registration of CARDINAL foreign lawyers .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s request of DATE to ORG , the latter ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE and the ORG ’s decision of DATE , annulling the applicant ’s registration with ORG . The ORG decided to repeal its decision of DATE , to restore the applicant ’s previous status as a lawyer eligible to practise and to notify this new decision to him and to ORG .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s transfer to ORG , ordered his registration on that GPE ’s list of lawyers and decided to notify this decision to him and to ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that on DATE the ORG had notified him of its decision of DATE , and that to date he had not received any formal notification from the GPE concerning its decision of DATE .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ An official deed must be adopted in the form required by law , by a public official competent to act in the place where it was adopted . ”

“ An official deed shall be authentic in respect of any person subject to its terms and clauses . The execution of an official deed ... shall be suspended where a criminal complaint is lodged against its author . Where such a complaint alleging forgery is made in the course of civil proceedings , the courts may , depending upon the circumstances , provisionally suspend the execution of the deed . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ ... the application to the court ( to annul an administrative act ) must be lodged within DATE from the date on which the act is notified . ”

“ ... If a claim is allowed , the court shall also rule on the damages claimed . ”

“ Where the claimant has applied for the annulment of the administrative act without claiming damages at the same time , as the amount of the damage sustained was not known at the time of the examination of the application for annulment , the time allowed for submitting a claim for damages shall run from the date on which he becomes aware of or should have become aware of the damage sustained . ”

Article CARDINAL of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerning certain measures with regard to the organisation and practice of the legal profession provided :

“ ORG UAR ... shall have the following powers ...

( d ) to review decisions taken by the standing committee of the ORG or by ORG and , if it establishes that these decisions are illegal , to annul them ; ...

( j ) to rule on applications for admission or readmission to the Bar and for transfer and secondment of lawyers from CARDINAL Bar to another ; ... ”

On DATE LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) entered into force , repealing Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Its relevant provisions read as follows :

“ The Bar shall be required to draw up an DATE roll of qualified and trainee lawyers , in alphabetical order , mentioning their first and last names , academic qualifications and date of admission to the Bar , the place where they practise , their professional capacity and the courts in which they are entitled to plead ...

The Bar shall transmit the DATE list and the modifications thereto to the courts , the investigating authorities , the regional administrative authorities and GPE . ”

“ The Bar Council shall have the following powers : ...

( c ) to prepare , amend and publish the DATE roll of lawyers . It shall transmit this list , with any changes that are necessary , to all interested bodies ; ...

( h ) to acknowledge applications for transfers or secondment within the Bar ;

( i ) to monitor compliance with the conditions set out in this LAW and the Rules as regards the manner of exercise of the profession , and to organise and keep details of such reviews ... ”

“ ORG shall meet on a DATE basis and ... shall have the following powers : ...

( b ) to discuss , approve and modify the Rules governing ORG ; ...

( g ) to approve admission to the Bar in all the cases provided for by the law ; ...

( i ) to rule on complaints against decisions by ORG concerning the refusal of transfer or secondment requests . ”

On DATE Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was amended , granting the following powers to ORG in a new section CARDINAL ( i ) :

“ ORG shall have the following powers : ...

( i ) to annul decisions by the Bar on grounds of illegality . ”

Rule CARDINAL of the Rules governing ORG , adopted by the ORG and published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , provides :

“ Decisions adopted by ORG or by ORG may be annulled by ORG solely on grounds of illegality or a breach of the provisions of the Rules , provided that the Bar ’s autonomy is respected .

Decisions by the PERSON of the Bar may be contested before ORG . ”

On DATE , in a final judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG held in proceedings between a private party and the ORG that the latter was an administrative authority with a structure and powers provided for by law , and that LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) applied to its decisions .

On DATE , in a final decision ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG held that the ORG was an administrative authority carrying out administrative acts , that it had a structure and powers established by law , and that it fulfilled a public service role .

On DATE , in a final decision ( no . CARDINAL ) in proceedings against the ORG concerning the right to be admitted to the legal profession without an examination , ORG held that “ it [ was ] undisputed that the decision [ of the ORG was ] an administrative act issued by a public authority ” and that PERSON no . PERSON was applicable to the case .

On DATE , in a final decision ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG set aside a decision of an appellate court on the ground that , inter alia , it had reversed without stating reasons a previous order concerning the admission of evidence .


The applicant [ Mr PERSON ] is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Before the ORG he was represented by PERSON of ORG .

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

Having collected the signatures of CARDINAL mayors , as required by LAW of DATE , the applicant decided to stand as a candidate in the DATE presidential election .

By a decision of DATE ORG accepted his candidacy and by virtue of his status as a candidate the ORG paid him an advance of MONEY ( ORG ) on the lump - sum reimbursement of his campaign expenses , for which there was a ceiling of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in force for each candidate and FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL for each candidate in the second round of voting .

In the first round of the presidential election , which took place on DATE , the applicant received CARDINAL votes , or PERCENT of the votes cast . He did not take part in the second round of the election on DATE .

In accordance with Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , which requires campaign accounts to be lodged within DATE of the second round of voting , the applicant lodged his accounts with ORG on DATE . In response to requests for further particulars on DATE and DATE from the scrutineers auditing his accounts , the applicant supplied the information and documents sought on CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

The applicant ’s accounts showed electoral expenses of ORG CARDINAL and receipts of ORG CARDINAL . The receipts were broken down as follows : an advance from the State of FRF CARDINAL , FRF CARDINAL in bank loans , FRF CARDINAL in the form of an advance from a party named “ Fédération pour une nouvelle solidarité ” ( Federation for a New Solidarity ) and ORG CARDINAL in loans made by natural persons , which included ORG CARDINAL interest - free , and ORG CARDINAL in donations .

It appears from the documents supplied by the applicant that he had personally taken out a bank loan of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and that it had been stipulated that this loan was to be “ paid off by reimbursement of the campaign expenses ” .

The loans amounting to a total of FRF CARDINAL were made by CARDINAL individuals during the period from DATE . All but CARDINAL of these loans were interest - free and were to be repaid in full after Mr Cheminade had received the statutory lump - sum reimbursement to candidates in presidential elections . The loan contracts were sent in by the applicant after his campaign accounts had been lodged in response to the ORG requests .

The receipts of the other candidates in the presidential election amounted , for the candidates in the first round of voting only , to approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL for PERSON , ORG CARDINAL for PERSON , ORG CARDINAL for PERSON , ORG CARDINAL for Mr ORG , FRF QUANTITY for PERSON and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL for Mr PERSON . For the CARDINAL candidates in the second round the receipts recorded in the campaign accounts were approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL for PERSON and ORG CARDINAL for Mr PERSON .

LAW DATE on election by universal suffrage to the office of President of the Republic , as amended by LAW of DATE on the financing of political life , provides for a sum of PERCENT of the maximum expenses ( that is a maximum of ORG CARDINAL ) to be reimbursed in a lump - sum to each candidate who does not obtain PERCENT of the total votes cast in the first round .

This lump - sum reimbursement may not , however , exceed the amount of the candidate ’s expenses as recorded in his campaign accounts , and no reimbursement is made to candidates whose campaign accounts have been rejected .

In the present case , by a decision of DATE , ORG , which was empowered for the first time , pursuant to LAW of DATE , to approve , reject or correct the campaign accounts of candidates in a presidential election , rejected the applicant ’s campaign accounts on the following grounds :

“ It appears from the campaign accounts lodged by the candidate that he received a total of ORG stated to be interest - free loans from natural persons . The investigation has revealed that FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL out of this sum , or CARDINAL of all the receipts declared , came from CARDINAL loans made after DATE . In view of the relative weight of these resources in the campaign finances as a whole , the fact that no interest was stipulated gave the candidate in the present case an advantage which must be equated with a donation pursuant to LAW Regard being had to the dates of the contracts concerned , and the scale and systematic nature of the advantages thus provided , the campaign accounts must be considered to have been drawn up in breach of PERSON DATE , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON of LAW and must accordingly be rejected . ”

The applicant was therefore deprived of the possibility of obtaining a lump - sum reimbursement of his electoral expenses to the value of ORG CARDINAL and on DATE the Minister of the ORG served him with an order to repay the FRF CARDINAL paid to him by the ORG as an advance on this reimbursement .

On DATE the ORG sent the applicant a notice to pay , which led to nothing . On DATE a bailiff drew up a report on a seizure of goods carried out with a view to the sale of furniture from the applicant ’s home , namely a period wardrobe , a desk , a bench , an armchair , a folding screen and CARDINAL books .

On DATE the applicant applied to the judge at the GPE tribunal de grande instance responsible for the execution of judgments arguing that some of the goods seized were in fact exempt from seizure and that he was entitled to a stay of execution until such time as ORG ( “ the Commission ” ) had reached a decision on the violations of the LAW alleged in the present application .

On DATE the ORG had attached CARDINAL sums of money available in the applicant ’s bank accounts .

“ Electoral transactions shall be organised according to the rules laid down by Articles ... PERSON to PERSON , PERSON and PERSON of LAW ... , subject to the following provisions .

The ceiling for electoral expenses laid down by Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL shall be FRF CARDINAL for a candidate for election to the office of President of the Republic . That figure shall be raised to FRF CARDINAL for each of the candidates in the second round of voting .

Campaign accounts and their annexes shall be lodged with ORG within DATE of the round of voting from which the successful candidate emerges ...

The amount of the advance payment ... must be included in the receipts recorded in the campaign accounts .

When the list of the candidates in the first round is published the ORG shall pay to each of them the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL as an advance on the lump - sum reimbursement of their campaign expenses provided for in the following paragraph . Where the amount of the reimbursement does not reach that sum , the surplus must be repaid .

A sum of up to CARDINAL of the amount of the relevant ceiling for campaign expenses shall be reimbursed , in a lump - sum , to each candidate . This sum shall be increased to CARDINAL of that ceiling for each candidate who receives PERCENT of the total votes cast in the first - round ballot . It may not exceed the candidate ’s total expenses as recorded in his campaign accounts [ exceptionally , for the application of this paragraph of LAW DATE to the first election of a President of the Republic following publication of the present LAW , the proportions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ceiling for electoral expenses shall be raised to PERCENT and PERCENT of that ceiling respectively ] .

The lump - sum reimbursement provided for in the previous paragraph shall not be made to candidates ... whose campaign accounts have been rejected . ”

“ During DATE in which an election is held and until the date of the round of voting from which the successful candidate emerges a candidate in this election may not have collected funds with a view to financing his campaign otherwise than through an agent designated by him ... ”

“ A financial agent may collect funds only during the period contemplated in LAW . ”

“ Donations made by a duly identified natural person to finance the campaign of CARDINAL or more candidates in the same election may not exceed ORG CARDINAL . ”

“ Each candidate ... is required to keep campaign accounts recording the source of all receipts and the nature of all the expenses incurred or paid with the election in mind , other than those for the official campaign , by himself or on his behalf , during the period contemplated in LAW ... The campaign accounts must be in balance or in surplus and may not show any deficit . ”

“ Where an item of expenditure recorded in the campaign accounts costs less than the normal price , [ ORG ] shall evaluate the difference and add an equivalent sum to the campaign expenses , after inviting the candidate to produce any documentary evidence which might help to assess the circumstances . The sum thus added shall be considered a donation , within the meaning of Article PERSON , made by the natural person or persons concerned . [ The ORG ] shall deal in the same manner with all direct or indirect advantages , services and donations in kind from which the candidate has derived benefit . ”

“ CARDINAL . Taking receipts into account

( b ) The Constitutional Council further notes that in some cases funds paid in have been declared to have come from loans made by natural persons . Such loans , which may in part really constitute donations where no interest is payable , or where the rate of interest payable is lower than the usual money - market rates , make any attempt to exercise scrutiny a hit - or - miss affair . Moreover , the ORG is not in a position to verify , once the accounts have been made up , whether the contractual repayments have actually been made . Yet in the absence of such verification the payments owed by the ORG may be the cause of unjustified enrichment for the candidate . It therefore appears to be desirable for natural persons to be allowed to make only donations within the limits laid down by law , but not loans of any kind . ”