CASE OF LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicants alleged that in DATE ORG operated an LAW ( “ ETF ” ) at GPE , PERSON , which was built to intercept CARDINAL simultaneous telephone channels coming from GPE to GPE and on to the continent . DATE the applicants claimed that the ORG intercepted all public telecommunications , including telephone , facsimile and e - mail communications , carried on microwave radio between the CARDINAL ORG radio stations ( at FAC and GPE ) , a link which also carried much of GPE ’s telecommunications traffic . During this period the applicant organisations were in regular telephone contact with each other and also providing , inter alia , legal advice to those who sought their assistance . They alleged that many of their communications would have passed between the ORG radio stations referred to above and would thus have been intercepted by the ORG .

On DATE , having seen a television report on the alleged activities of the ETF , the applicant organisations requested ORG ( “ the ORG ” : see CARDINAL below ) to investigate the lawfulness of any warrants which had been issued in respect of the applicants’ communications between GPE and GPE and GPE . On DATE an official of the ORG confirmed that an investigation would proceed and added :

“ ... I am directed to advise you that the ORG has no way of knowing in advance of an investigation whether a warrant exists in any given case . The ORG investigates all complaints in accordance with section CARDINAL of the [ Interception of Communications Act DATE : ‘ the DATE Act’ , see paragraphs CARDINAL below ] establishing whether a relevant warrant or relevant certificate exists or had existed and , if so , whether there has been any contravention of sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL . If ... the ORG concludes that there has been a contravention of sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL , the ORG may take steps under sections DATE ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) . In any case where there is found to have been no contravention , the ORG is not empowered to disclose whether or not authorised interception has taken place . In such instances , complainants are advised only that there has been no contravention of sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL in relation to a relevant warrant or a relevant certificate . ”

By a letter dated DATE the ORG confirmed that it had thoroughly investigated the matter and was satisfied that there had been no contravention of sections CARDINAL of the DATE Act in relation to the relevant warrant or certificate .

By a letter dated DATE the applicants complained to the ORG of an unlawful interception , requesting the prosecution of those responsible . The ORG passed the matter to ORG for investigation . By a letter dated DATE the police explained that no investigation could be completed until the ORG had investigated and that a police investigation might then follow if it could be shown that an unwarranted interception had taken place or if any of the other conditions set out in section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act had not been met . The applicants pointed out , in their letter of CARDINAL DATE , that the vague , albeit statutory , response of the ORG would mean that they would not know whether a warrant had been issued or , if it had , whether it had been complied with . They would not , therefore , be in a position to make submissions to the police after the ORG investigation as to whether or not a criminal investigation was warranted . The applicants asked if , and if so how , the police could establish for themselves whether or not a warrant had been issued , so as to decide whether an investigation was required , and how the police would investigate , assuming there had been no warrant .

The ORG responded on DATE that the police had to await the ORG decision , and the police responded on DATE that the applicants’ concerns were receiving the fullest attention , but that they were unable to enter into discussion on matters of internal procedure and inter - departmental investigation .

On DATE the applicants wrote to the police pointing out that , having received the decision of the ORG , they still did not know whether or not there had been a warrant or whether there had been unlawful interception . The response , dated DATE , assured the applicants that police officers were making enquires with the relevant agencies with a view to establishing whether there had been a breach of section CARDINAL of the DATE Act and identifying the appropriate investigative authority . The police informed the applicants by a letter dated DATE that their enquiries continued , and , by a letter dated DATE , that these enquiries had not revealed an offence contrary to section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act .

On DATE the former statutory regime for the interception of communications was replaced by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) and a new tribunal , the ORG , was created .

On DATE the applicants began proceedings in the ORG against the security and intelligence agencies of GPE , complaining of interferences with their rights to privacy for their telephone and other communications from DATE ( NORP - Irish Rights Watch and others v. ORG and others , IPT/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CH ) . The ORG , sitting as its President and Vice - President ( a ORG and a ORG judge ) , had security clearance and was able to proceed in the light not just of open evidence filed by the defendant services but also confidential evidence , which could not be made public for reasons of national security .

On DATE the ORG made a number of preliminary rulings on points of law . Although the applicants had initially formulated a number of claims , by the time of the ruling these had been narrowed down to a single complaint about the lawfulness of the “ filtering process ” , whereby communications between GPE and an external source , captured under a warrant pursuant to LAW ) of LAW ( which had replaced section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act : see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , were sorted and accessed pursuant to secret selection criteria . The question was , therefore , whether “ the process of filtering intercepted telephone calls made from the GPE to overseas telephones ... breaches LAW [ of LAW ] because it is not ‘ in accordance with the law’ ” .

The ORG found that the difference between the warrant schemes for interception of internal and external communications was justifiable , because it was more necessary for additional care to be taken with regard to interference with privacy by a Government in relation to domestic telecommunications , given the substantial potential control it exercised in this field ; and also because its knowledge of , and control over , external communications was likely to be much less extensive .

As to whether the law was sufficiently accessible and foreseeable for the purposes of LAW , the ORG observed :

“ The selection criteria in relation to accessing a large quantity of as yet unexamined material obtained pursuant to a sCARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant ( as indeed in relation to material obtained in relation to a sCARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant ) are those set out in sCARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . The Complainants’ Counsel complains that there is no ‘ publicly stated material indicating that a relevant person is satisfied that the [ accessing ] of a particular individual ’s telephone call is proportionate’ . But the ORG submit that there is indeed such publicly stated material , namely the provisions of sCARDINAL(l ) of LAW which requires a public authority to act compatibly with Convention rights , and thus , it is submitted , imposes a duty to act proportionately in applying to the material the sCARDINAL(CARDINAL ) criteria .

To that duty there is added the existence of CARDINAL safeguards listed by ORG , namely ( CARDINAL ) the criminal prohibition on unlawful interception ( CARDINAL ) the involvement of the Secretary of ORG ( CARDINAL ) the guiding role of ORG ( ‘ JIC’ ) ( CARDINAL ) LAW ( CARDINAL ) the oversight by LAW ( whose powers are set out in Part IV of the Act ) ( CARDINAL ) the availability of proceedings before this Tribunal and ( CARDINAL ) the oversight by ORG , an all - party body of CARDINAL Parliamentarians created by the Intelligence Services Act DATE ...

It is plain that , although in fact the existence of all these safeguards is publicly known , it is not part of the requirements for accessibility or foreseeability that the precise details of those safeguards should be published . ORG has pointed out that it appears from the Respondents’ evidence that there are in existence additional operating procedures , as would be expected given the requirements that there be the extra safeguards required by sCARDINAL of the LAW , and the obligation of the Secretary of ORG to ensure their existence under sCARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) . It is not suggested by the Complainants that the nature of those operating procedures be disclosed , but that their existence , i.e. something along the lines of what is in the Respondents’ evidence , should itself be disclosed in LAW .

We are unpersuaded by this . First , such a statement in DATE , namely as to the existence of such procedures , would in fact take the matter no further than it already stands by virtue of the words of the statute . But in any event , the existence of such procedures is CARDINAL of the substantial number of safeguards which are known to exist . Accessibility and foreseeability are satisfied by the knowledge of the criteria and the knowledge of the existence of those multiple safeguards .

... [ F]oreseeability is only expected to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances , and the circumstances here are those of national security ... In this case the legislation is adequate and the guidelines are clear . PERSON does not require that a person who telephones abroad knows that his conversation is going to be intercepted because of the existence of a valid s. CARDINAL ) warrant . ...

The provisions , in this case the right to intercept and access material covered by a s.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant , and the criteria by reference to which it is exercised , are in our judgment sufficiently accessible and foreseeable to be in accordance with law . The parameters in which the discretion to conduct interception is carried on , by reference to s. CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and subject to the safeguards referred to , are plain from the face of the statute . In this difficult and perilous area of national security , taking into account both the necessary narrow approach to Article PERSON ) and the fact that the burden is placed upon the Respondent , we are satisfied that the balance is properly struck . ”

During the period at issue in this application the relevant legislation was sections CARDINAL of ORG DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , which came into force on DATE and was repealed by ORG ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , a person who intentionally intercepted a communication in the course of its transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunications system was guilty of an offence . A number of exceptions were made , the relevant CARDINAL being a communication intercepted pursuant to a warrant issued by the Secretary of ORG under LAW and in accordance with a certificate issued under section CARDINAL ) of LAW .

NORP The Secretary of ORG ’s power to issue a warrant under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act could be exercised only if he considered the warrant necessary :

“ ( a ) in the interests of national security ;

( b ) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime ; or

( c ) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well - being of GPE . ”

The term “ serious crime ” was defined by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW as follows :

“ For the purposes of [ the DATE Act ] , conduct which constitutes or , if it took place in GPE , would constitute one or more offences shall be regarded as a serious crime if , and only if –

( a ) it involves the use of violence , results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose ; or

( b ) the offence , or one of the offences , is an offence for which a person who has attained the age of CARDINAL and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of DATE or more . ”

The scope of the term “ national security ” was clarified by the Commissioner appointed under LAW . In his DATE report he stated ( § CARDINAL ) that he had adopted the following definition : activities “ which threaten the safety or well - being of the ORG , and which are intended to undermine or overthrow Parliamentary democracy by political , industrial or violent means ” .

In determining whether a warrant was necessary for CARDINAL of the CARDINAL reasons set out in CARDINAL ) of LAW , the Secretary of ORG was under a duty to take into account whether the information which it was considered necessary to acquire could reasonably be acquired by other means ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . In addition , warrants to safeguard the economic well - being of GPE could not be issued unless the information to be acquired related to the acts or intentions of persons outside GPE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . A warrant required the person to whom it was addressed to intercept , in the course of their transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunications system , such communications as were described in the warrant .

Two types of warrant were permitted by LAW . The first , a “ section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant ” , was a warrant that required the interception of :

“ ( a ) NORP such communications as are sent to or from one or more addresses specified in the warrant , being an address or addresses likely to be used for the transmission of communications to or from– PERSON ( i ) NORP one particular person specified or described in the warrant ; or PERSON ( ii ) NORP one particular set of LOC so specified or described ; and

( b ) such other communications ( if any ) as it is necessary to intercept in order to intercept communications falling within paragraph ( a ) above . ”

By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , the word “ person ” was defined to include any organisation or combination of persons and the word “ address ” was defined to mean any postal or telecommunications address .

The second type of warrant , a “ section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant ” , was one that required the interception , in the course of transmission by means of a public telecommunications system , of :

“ ( i ) NORP such external communications as are described in the warrant ; and

( ii ) NORP such other communications ( if any ) as it is necessary to intercept in order to intercept such external communications as are so described ... ” .

When he issued a section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant , the Secretary of ORG was required to issue also a certificate containing a description of the intercepted material the examination of which he considered necessary in the interests of national security , to prevent or detect serious crime or to safeguard the ORG ’s economic well - being ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) ) . A section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant could not specify an address in LOC for the purpose of including communications sent to or from that address in the certified material unless-

“ CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( a ) NORP the Secretary of ORG considers that the examination of communications sent to or from that address is necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting acts of terrorism ; and

( b ) communications sent to or from that address are included in the certified material only in so far as they are sent within such a period , not exceeding DATE , as is specified in the certificate . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrants could be issued only under the hand of the Secretary of ORG or a permitted official of high rank with the written authorisation of the Secretary of ORG . If issued under the hand of the Secretary of ORG , the warrant was valid for DATE ; if by another official , it was valid for DATE . Only the Secretary of ORG could renew a warrant . If the Secretary of ORG considered that a warrant was no longer necessary in the interests of national security , to prevent or detect serious crime or to safeguard the ORG ’s economic well - being , he was under a duty to cancel it ( section CARDINAL ) .

The DATE report of the Commissioner for DATE explained the difference between warrants issued under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) :

“ There are a number of differences ... But the essential differences may be summarised as follows :

( i ) Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrants apply only to external telecommunications ;

( ii ) NORP whereas section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrants only apply to communications to or from one particular person ... or one particular set of LOC , ORG ) warrants are not so confined ; but

( iii ) at the time of issuing a Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant the Secretary of ORG is obliged to issue a certificate describing the material which it is desired to intercept ; and which he regards as necessary to examine for any of the purposes set out in LAW ) .

So the authority to intercept granted by the Secretary of ORG under LAW ) is limited not so much by reference to the target , as it is under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , but by reference to the material . It follows that in relation to LAW ) warrants , I have had to consider first , whether the warrant applies to external communications only , and , secondly , whether the certified material satisfies the Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) criteria . ...

There is a further important limitation on LAW ) warrants . I have said that the authority granted by the Secretary of ORG is limited by reference to the material specified in the certificate , rather than the targets named in the warrants . This distinction is further underlined by LAW ) which provides that material specified shall not include the address in GPE for the purpose of including communications sent to or from that address , except in the case of counter - terrorism . So if , for example in a case of subversion ORG wishes to intercept external communications to or from a resident of GPE , he could not do so under a Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant by asking for communications sent to or from his address to be included in the certified material . But it would be possible for ORG to get indirectly , through a legitimate examination of certified material , what it may not get directly . In such cases it has become the practice to apply for a separate warrant under LAW ) known as an overlapping warrant , in addition to the warrant under LAW ) . There is nothing in the [ CARDINAL LAW ] which requires this to be done . But it is obviously a sound practice , and wholly consistent with the legislative intention underlying Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . Accordingly I would recommend that where it is desired to intercept communications to or from an individual residing in LOC , as a separate target , then in all cases other than counter - terrorism there should be a separate warrant under LAW ) , even though the communications may already be covered by a warrant under LAW ) . The point is not without practical importance . For the definition of “ relevant warrant ” and “ relevant certificate ” in LAW ) of the LAW makes it clear that , while the ORG has power to investigate warrants issued under section CARDINAL ) and certificates under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) where an address is specified in the certificate , it has no such power to investigate LAW ) warrants , where an address is not so certified . ”

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act was entitled “ Safeguards ” and read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where the Secretary of ORG issues a warrant he shall , unless such arrangements have already been made , make such arrangements as he considers necessary for the purpose of securing-

( a ) that the requirements of subsections ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) below are satisfied in relation to the intercepted material ; and

( b ) where a certificate is issued in relation to the warrant , that so much of the intercepted material as is not certified by the certificate is not read , looked at or listened to by any person .

( CARDINAL ) The requirements of this subsection are satisfied in relation to any intercepted material if each of the following , namely-

( a ) the extent to which the material is disclosed ;

( b ) the number of persons to whom any of the material is disclosed ;

( c ) the extent to which the material is copied ; and

( d ) the number of copies made of any of the material ;

is limited to the minimum that is necessary as mentioned in LAW ) above .

( CARDINAL ) The requirements of this subsection are satisfied in relation to any intercepted material if each copy made of any of that material is destroyed as soon as its retention is no longer necessary as mentioned in LAW ) above . ”

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided for a ORG to investigate complaints from any person who believed that communications sent by or to him had been intercepted . Its jurisdiction , so far as material , was limited to investigating whether there was or had been a “ relevant warrant ” or a “ relevant certificate ” and , where there was or had been , whether there had been any contravention of sections CARDINAL of the DATE Act in relation to that warrant or certificate . LAW ) read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ For the purposes of this section –

( a ) a warrant is a relevant warrant in relation to an applicant if –

( i ) the applicant is specified or described in the warrant ; or

( ii ) an address used for the transmission of communications to or from a set of LOC in GPE where the applicant resides or works is so specified ;

( b ) a certificate is a relevant certificate in relation to an applicant if and to the extent that an address used as mentioned in paragraph ( a)(ii ) above is specified in the certificate for the purpose of including communications sent to or from that address in the certified material . ”

The ORG applied the principles applicable by a court on an application for judicial review . If it found there had been a contravention of the provisions of the LAW , it was to give notice of that finding to the applicant , make a report to the Prime Minister and to the Commissioner appointed under LAW and , where it thought fit , make an order quashing the relevant warrant , directing the destruction of the material intercepted and/or directing the Secretary of ORG to pay compensation . In other cases , the ORG was to give notice to the applicant stating that there had been no contravention of sections CARDINAL of the Act .

The ORG consisted of CARDINAL members , each of whom was required to be a qualified lawyer of not DATE standing . They held office for a DATE period and could be re - appointed . The decisions of the ORG were not subject to appeal .

Section CARDINAL provided that a Commissioner be appointed by the Prime Minister . He or she was required to be a person who held , or who had held , high judicial office . The Commissioner ’s functions included the following :

– to keep under review the carrying out by the Secretary of ORG of the functions conferred on him by sections CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ;

– to give to the ORG all such assistance as it might require for the purpose of enabling it to carry out its functions ;

– to keep under review the adequacy of the arrangements made under section CARDINAL for safeguarding intercepted material and destroying it where its retention was no longer necessary ;

– to report to the Prime Minister if there appeared to have been a contravention of sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL which had not been reported by the ORG or if the arrangements under LAW were inadequate ;

– to make an DATE report to the Prime Minister on the exercise of the Commissioner ’s functions . This report had to be laid before ORG . The Prime Minister had the power to exclude any matter from the report if publication would have been prejudicial to national security , to the prevention or detection of serious crime or to the well - being of GPE . The report had to state if any matter had been so excluded .

In his first report as Commissioner , in DATE , Sir PERSON , as he then was , explained his own role as part of the safeguards inherent in the DATE Act as follows :

“ The third major safeguard is provided by the Commissioner himself . While there is nothing to prevent consultation of the Commissioner before a warrant is issued , it is not the practice to consult him in advance and such consultation on a routine basis would not be practicable . So the Commissioner ’s view is largely retrospective , to check that warrants have not been issued in contravention of the LAW and that appropriate procedures were followed . To that end , I have visited all the warrant issuing departments and agencies named in this report , in most cases more than once , and discussed at some length the background to the warrant applications . I have also discussed the procedure for seeking warrants with officials at various levels in all the initiating bodies and presenting departments . I have inspected a significant number of warrants , some chosen by me at random , some put before me because it was felt that I should see them . Although I have described ... a number of instances in which mistakes were made or mishaps occurred , I have seen no case in which the statutory restrictions were deliberately evaded or corners knowingly cut . A salutary practice has grown up by which the Commissioner ’s attention is specifically drawn to any case in which an error or contravention of the LAW has occurred : I accordingly believe that there has been no such case during DATE of which I am unaware . ”

Similar conclusions about the authorities’ compliance with the law were drawn by all the Commissioners in their reports during DATE .

In each of the DATE reports made under the DATE Act the Commissioner stated that in his view the arrangements made under section DATE were adequate and complied with , without revealing what the arrangements were . In the DATE Report the Commissioner noted at § CARDINAL that there had been technological advances in the telecommunications field which had “ necessitated the making of further arrangements by the Secretary of ORG for the safeguarding of material under section CARDINAL of the [ CARDINAL Act ] ” . The Commissioner stated that he had reviewed the adequacy of the new arrangements . For DATE , the Commissioner recorded that , as a result of a new practice of the police disclosing some material to ORG , a further change in the section CARDINAL arrangements had been required . The Commissioner said in the DATE Report that he was “ satisfied with the adequacy of the new arrangements ” ( DATE Report at § CARDINAL ) . In the DATE Report , the Commissioner stated that there had been some minor changes to the section CARDINAL arrangements and confirmed that he was satisfied with the arrangements as modified ( § CARDINAL of the DATE Report ) . In the DATE Report , the Commissioner said at LAW :

“ Some of the written statements of section CARDINAL safeguards which I inspected required to be updated to take account of changes in the public telecommunications market since they had been drafted and approved . Other statements could , as it seemed to me , be improved by more explicit rules governing the circumstances and manner in which , and the extent to which , intercept material could be copied . It also seemed to me that it would be advantageous , where this was not already done , to remind all involved m handling intercept material on a regular basis of the safeguards to which they were subject , securing written acknowledgements that the safeguards had been read and understood . These suggestions appeared to be readily accepted by the bodies concerned . They did not in my view indicate any failure to comply with section CARDINAL of the LAW . ”

In DATE as Commissioner , Lord PERSON reported the following on this issue of section QUANTITY safeguards ( DATE Report , § CARDINAL ) :

“ Like my predecessors , I have on each of my visits considered and discussed the arrangements made by the Secretary of ORG under section CARDINAL for the purpose of limiting the dissemination and retention of intercepted material to what is necessary within the meaning of LAW . Each agency has its own set of such arrangements , and there are understandable variations between them . For example , the practical considerations involved in deciding what is necessary in the interests of national security , or the economic well - being of GPE ( the areas with which ORG and ORG are almost exclusively concerned ) are somewhat different from those involved in the prevention and detection of serious criminal offences ( with which the police forces and ORG are almost exclusively concerned ) . I am satisfied that all of the agendas are operating within the existing approved safeguards under the terms of the arrangements as they stand ... ”

The CARDINAL Act came into force on DATE . The explanatory memorandum described the main purpose of the Act as being to ensure that the relevant investigatory powers were used in accordance with human rights . As to the first , interceptions of communications , LAW repealed , inter alia , sections CARDINAL of the DATE Act and provides for a new regime for the interception of communications .

The CARDINAL Act is designed to cover the purposes for which the relevant investigatory powers may be used , which authorities can use the powers , who should authorise each use of the power , the use that can be made of the material gained , judicial oversight and a means of redress for the individual .

A new Investigatory Powers Tribunal ( “ IPT ” ) assumed the responsibilities of the former ORG , of ORG and of ORG . The Interception of Communications Commissioner continues to review the actions of the Secretary of ORG as regards warrants and certificates and to review the adequacy of the arrangements made for the execution of those warrants . He is also , as before , to assist the ORG . In addition , the Secretary of ORG is to consult about and to publish codes of practice relating to the exercise and performance of duties in relation to , inter alia , interceptions of communications .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of QUANTITY defines interception as follows :

“ For the purposes of this LAW , but subject to the following provisions of this section , a person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunications system if , and only if , he –

( a ) so modifies or interferes with the system , or its operation ,

( b ) so monitors transmissions made by means of the system , or

( c ) so monitors transmissions made by wireless telegraphy to or from apparatus comprised in the system ,

as to make some of all of the contents of the communication available , while being transmitted , to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of QUANTITY provides that the Secretary of ORG shall not issue an interception warrant unless he believes that the warrant is necessary , inter alia , in the interests of national security , for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well - being of GPE and that the conduct authorised by the warrant is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct .

In addition to the general safeguards specified in section CARDINAL of the LAW , section CARDINAL additional safeguards in the case of certificated warrants ( namely warrants for interception of external communications supported by a certificate ) . In particular , section DATE ) provides that intercepted material is to be read , looked at or listened to by the persons to whom it becomes available by virtue of the warrant to the extent only that it has been certified as material the examination of which is necessary for CARDINAL of the above purposes and falls within subsection ( CARDINAL ) . Intercepted material falls within subsection ( CARDINAL ) so far only as it is selected to be read , looked at or listened to otherwise than according to a factor which is referable to an individual who is known to be for the time being in GPE and has as its purpose , or one of its purposes , the identification of material in communications sent by that person , or intended for him .

NORP In its Ruling of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the ORG set out the following extracts from ORG issued pursuant to s. CARDINAL of QUANTITY ( “ the Code of Practice ” ) . PERSON ) of the Code of Practice deals with the application for a s. CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant as follows :

“ An application for a warrant is made to the Secretary of ORG . . . Each application , a copy of which must be retained by the applicant , should contain the following information :

• Background to the operation in question .

• Person or premises to which the application relates ( and how the person or LOC feature in the operation ) .

• Description of the communications to be intercepted , details of communications service provider(s ) and an assessment of the feasibility of the interception operation where this is relevant .

• Description of the conduct to be authorised as considered necessary in order to carry out the interception , where appropriate .

• An explanation of why the interception is considered to be necessary under the provisions of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) .

• A consideration of why the conduct is to be authorised by the warrant is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct .

• A consideration of any unusual degree of collateral intrusion and why that intrusion is justified in the circumstances . In particular , where the communications in question might affect religious , medical or journalistic confidentiality or legal privilege , this must be specified in the application .

• Where an application is urgent , supporting justification should be provided .

• An assurance that all material intercepted will be handled in accordance with the safeguards required by LAW .

The ORG continued :

“ Applications for a s. CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant are addressed in subparagraph CARDINAL of the Code of Practice :

‘ An application for a warrant is made to the Secretary of ORG ... each application , a copy of which must be retained by the applicant , should contain the following information :

• Background to the operation in question [ identical to the first bullet point in CARDINAL ] .

• Description of the communications ... [ this is materially identical to the third bullet point in CARDINAL ] .

• Description of the conduct to be authorised , which must be restricted to the interception of external communications , or to conduct necessary in order to intercept those external communications , where appropriate [ compare the wording of the fourth bullet in CARDINAL ] .

• The certificate that will regulate examination of intercepted material .

• An explanation of why the interception is considered to be necessary for CARDINAL or more of the section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) purposes [ identical to the fifth bullet point in DATE ] .

• A consideration of why the conduct should be authorised by the warrant is proportionate . . . [ identical to the sixth bullet point in DATE ] .

• A consideration of any unusual degree of collateral intrusion . . . [ identical to the seventh bullet point in DATE ] .

• Where an application is urgent . . . [ identical to the eighth bullet point in CARDINAL ] .

• An assurance that intercepted material will be read , looked at or listened to only so far as it is certified , and it meets the conditions of sections PERSON ) -CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act .

• An assurance that all material intercepted will be handled in accordance with the safeguards required by sections CARDINAL and QUANTITY [ these last CARDINAL bullets of course are the equivalent to the last bullet point in DATE ] .

... By subparagraph CARDINAL ) , the s. CARDINAL ) warrant instrument should include ‘ the name or description of the interception subject or of the set of LOC in relation to which the interception is to take place’ and by subparagraph CARDINAL ) there is reference to the schedules required by s. CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of [ the CARDINAL Act ] . The equivalent provision in relation to the format of the s. CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) warrant in subparagraph CARDINAL ) does not of course identify a particular interception subject or LOC , but requires inclusion in the warrant of a ‘ description of the communications to be PERSON . ”


CASE OF NINA KAZMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

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

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants live in GPE , GPE . Their names and dates of birth are indicated in the appended table .

The applicants are pensioners . They sued the local social welfare authorities for underpaid cost - of - living adjustment of their pensions . On the dates set out in Appendix I the domestic courts granted their claims and ordered the welfare authorities of different districts of GPE to pay them the respective amounts . The judgments became final on the dates indicated in Appendix I.

In DATE all the applicants except for PERSON submitted the writs of execution to the bailiffs . On various dates of DATE the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the writs to the respective courts , referring to the debtor ’s lack of funds . In DATE these applicants resubmitted the enforcement documents for execution . The bailiffs returned the writs unenforced , with reference to the lack of funds .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected PERSON complaint about the bailiffs’ negligence .

In their observations the ORG submitted , without further detail , that at some point , apparently after DATE , ORG of ORG of GPE had invited the applicant to receive the judgment debt , but she had refused . They informed the ORG that on DATE the unspecified documents regarding payment of the judgment debt had been sent to a local post office , for delivery to the applicant . They furnished no information or documents confirming that the applicant had received the amount .

According to the Government , the writ of execution issued in respect the award in favour of PERSON was on DATE returned to ORG of GPE , on account of full execution of the award . All the documents concerning the enforcement proceedings were subsequently archived and destroyed . The Government submitted that , apparently , the judgment had been enforced in DATE , but they were not in possession of any documents evidencing the enforcement .

In DATE PERSON asked the district pension authority to execute the judgment , but the authority rejected her claim on the ground that the domestic ORG findings in her favour had been incorrect .

On DATE MONEY ( RUB ) of the judgment debt were transferred to her bank account . According to the Government , this payment had been made due to humanitarian considerations and respect for human rights .

The judgments in favour of the other applicants had been enforced on the dates tabulated in Appendix I.

The above applicants submitted in their observations , without further detail , that at some point after communication of their cases by the ORG they had been summoned for interviews by the local prosecutor ’s office . It followed from the summonses they received that they were called in respect of their complaints to the ORG . The summonses contained a reference to LAW stipulating that the prosecutor ’s instructions were binding , and the failure to comply with them might result in administrative responsibility .

PERSON furnished a copy of a prosecutor ’s explanatory note ( « объяснение ORG ) concerning her interview . It transpires from the note that the prosecutor asked the applicant questions about the judgment in her favour , the state of the enforcement proceedings and the authorities’ refusals to execute the award . The applicant confirmed that she was not willing to settle . PERSON and PERSON did not furnish any details in respect of the interviews .

Under section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , a bailiff must enforce a judgment within DATE . Under section QUANTITY of LAW of DATE , ORG must enforce a judgment within DATE .


CASE OF BALAŽOSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s ex - wife ( “ the plaintiff ” ) brought a civil action against him seeking a declaration that she owned a CARDINAL share of a property acquired during their marriage or , as an alternative , monetary compensation equal to CARDINAL of its value , which was not specified in the claim . The plaintiff set the claim value of the dispute ( вредност на спорот ) at MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) , as a basis for calculation of the court fees . The case was heard in ORG ( “ the first - instance court ” ) .

Both parties were legally represented in the proceedings . According to an expert report of CARDINAL DATE , the value of the property at issue was set at MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the plaintiff ’s claim , which it summarised as follows :

“ to recognise that the plaintiff holds title to a CARDINAL share of the [ property ] , it being joint matrimonial property ... and if the [ applicant ] wants to be released from this obligation , to pay the plaintiff the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) ” .

It established that the applicant , who had been living and working in GPE , had paid for the house that had been constructed on a land owned by his late father . The plaintiff had not contributed to the construction of the house . As specified in the introduction to the judgment , the court set the value of the dispute at MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

The plaintiff challenged the lower courts’ judgments by lodging an appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) with ORG . She complained that the first - instance court had been assisted by an unqualified interpreter and that it had wrongly established the facts regarding her contribution to the construction of the house , which was a matrimonial property . The public prosecutor also requested a protection - of - legality review ( барање за заштита на законитоста ) arguing that the lower courts had wrongly established that the parties had lived together for DATE , instead of DATE ( their marriage had terminated de facto in DATE when the plaintiff had left the house ) . The prosecutor further argued that the house in question , the value of which was NORP Marks CARDINAL , had been constructed DATE . The lower courts had failed to consider the plaintiff ’s contribution to the construction of the house , as a property obtained in wedlock .

On DATE ORG upheld both the legality review request and the plaintiff ’s appeal on points of law and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh examination . It held that the lower courts had incorrectly established that the house in question had been constructed while the parties had no longer been married . In the court ’s view , it had been in DATE when the applicant had explicitly declared his intention to separate from the plaintiff . It was irrelevant that the parties had not lived together for DATE before ( while the applicant had been in GPE ) . Similarly , it was of no importance whether the plaintiff had contributed to the construction of the house . Had it been constructed during marriage , it had been a joint property . The introductory part of that judgment specified that the value of the dispute was MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

By judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE the first - instance court again dismissed the plaintiff ’s claim . Both judgments were set aside by ORG on DATE and DATE respectively . All CARDINAL judgments indicated the same value of the dispute ( MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in their introductions . The case was again referred to the first - instance court for examination .

As submitted by the ORG , at a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the first - instance court established that the applicant had lodged a counterclaim requesting that the court award him ownership of the entire property at issue . It was decided that both claims would be dealt with in a single set of proceedings .

On DATE the first - instance court ruled partly in favour of the plaintiff and awarded her ownership of a PERCENT share of the property . It further ordered that the applicant recognise the plaintiff ’s rights of ownership or pay PERCENT of the property ’s value , previously calculated to be ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It dismissed the plaintiff ’s claim to be recognised as the owner of a CARDINAL share of the property or to receive monetary compensation of ORG CARDINAL . Furthermore , the applicant was awarded ownership of the remaining PERCENT share . His request to be recognised as the owner of the entire property was dismissed . The court also ruled on the trial costs . This judgment also indicated MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL as the value of the dispute .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the plaintiff and upheld an appeal by the applicant . It ordered a re - examination of the case concerning the first - instance court ’s judgment awarding the plaintiff ownership of a PERCENT share of the property or the equivalent monetary compensation and dismissing the applicant ’s claim to be declared the sole owner of the entire property . It also quashed the first - instance court ’s judgment regarding the trial costs .

Оn DATE the plaintiff lodged , with ORG , an appeal of points of law challenging the lower courts’ judgments , namely the dismissal of her claim to be declared the owner of a CARDINAL share of the property or to receive the equivalent monetary compensation , as well as the courts’ award of ownership to the applicant of PERCENT share . She alleged substantial procedural flaws and errors on the law . The applicant did not submit observations in reply .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG accepted the plaintiff ’s appeal on points of law and set aside the lower courts’ judgments in the disputed parts . It found that the lower courts had provided conflicting and insufficient reasons for their judgments . They had given contradictory arguments concerning the time when the house had been constructed and whether the latter could be regarded as a joint property obtained during marriage . Since the first - instance court had not complied with its instructions outlined in the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court ordered that the case is considered by a different panel of judges of the first - instance court . The introductory part of that judgment specified that the value of the dispute was ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE the first - instance court allowed the plaintiff ’s claim , awarding her ownership of CARDINAL of the disputed property , as a joint property acquired during marriage . It also ordered the applicant to recognise the plaintiff ’s rights of ownership to that part . It further dismissed the applicant ’s claim to award him ownership of the entire property at issue . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the lower court ’s judgment . Neither judgment contained any information about the value of the dispute .

On DATE the applicant lodged , with ORG , an appeal on points of law arguing that the lower courts had not followed the instructions of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In this connection he complained that they had not established the relevant facts , namely when had the relations between the parties deteriorated and what had been the plaintiff ’s contribution to the construction of the house . The plaintiff submitted observations in reply , in which she requested that the appeal be rejected as inadmissible .

On DATE ORG , referring to sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , rejected ( отфрла ) the applicant ’s appeal as inadmissible ratione valoris . The court stated :

“ While assessing the admissibility of an appeal of points of law , values of the dispute regarding a claim and a counterclaim are not cumulative . The admissibility of an appeal on points of law is assessed on the basis of the value of the dispute of the claim and the counterclaim taken separately .

In the present case , the value of the dispute regarding the claim was set at MKD CARDINAL . The claim value regarding the counterclaim is neither specified nor there is evidence that court fees were paid . Having regard to the list of legal fees for the legal representation of the [ applicant ] , it is clear that [ his lawyer ] requests the payment of MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL for legal representation , which corresponds , as per the fee scale of ORG , to a claim value MONEY ... According to a list of court fees under LAW , the plaintiff paid court fees in amount of LAW , which corresponds to a claim of MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL in value . In view of the foregoing , the appeal on points of law is inadmissible . ORG accordingly rejects the appeal on points of law as inadmissible under section CARDINAL of LAW . According to section CARDINAL of LAW ( “ Official Gazette ” no.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provisions of the old LAW ( “ Official Gazette ” no.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) apply in the present case ” .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW DATE , as valid at the material time , read as follows :

“ When an action does not concern a sum of money , but the plaintiff specified in the lawsuit ( тужба ) that he or she would accept monetary compensation instead of the claim , the amount of that compensation would be regarded as the value of the dispute .

In other cases , when the action does not concern a sum of money , the relevant value shall be the value of the dispute indicated by the plaintiff in the lawsuit .

If , in the case referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section , it is obvious that the value of the subject matter of the dispute indicated by the plaintiff is too high or too low , so that the question of ... the right to lodge an appeal on points of law arises , the court shall , at the latest at the preparatory hearing or , if no preparatory hearing was held , at the main hearing before the examination of the merits , quickly and in an appropriate manner verify the accuracy of the indicated value . ”

“ When the composition of the court or the right to lodge an appeal on points of law , depends on the value of the dispute , and the object of an action is not the sum of money , the plaintiff shall in the lawsuit indicate the value of the dispute . ”

“ The court is bound by its judgment as soon as it has been pronounced , and if the judgment has not been pronounced , as soon as it has been dispatched ( испратена ) . ”

“ An appeal on points of law is inadmissible in property - related disputes in which the action does not concern a sum of money , transfer of movable property or any other activity , if the value of the dispute , as specified in the lawsuit by the plaintiff , does not exceed MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . ”

“ An appeal on points of law shall be lodged with the court which gave the first - instance judgment ... ”

“ A belated , incomplete or [ otherwise ] inadmissible appeal on points of law , shall be declared inadmissible by a decision of the president of a panel of the first - instance court , without holding a hearing . ”

“ The president of a panel of the first - instance court shall forward a copy of a timely , complete and admissible appeal on points of law to the opposing party and the public prosecutor authorised to lodge a request for the protection of legality ( барање за заштита на законитоста ) .

The opposing party can , within DATE of the service of the appeal on points of law , submit a reply to the appeal on points of law to the [ same ] court .

On receipt of the reply ... the president of the panel of the first - instance court shall forward the appeal on points of law and the reply ... , if any , together with the case file to ORG ... ”

“ A belated , incomplete or [ otherwise ] inadmissible appeal on points of law shall be declared inadmissible by the [ ORG ] , if the first - instance court has not already rejected it , within its powers ( section CARDINAL ) . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) When ORG has found a violation of a human right or fundamental freedom guaranteed by LAW or additional protocols thereto ratified by GPE , a party may , within DATE of the judgment of ORG becoming final , file a petition with the court in GPE which adjudicated in the first instance in the proceedings in which the decision violating the human right or fundamental freedom was rendered , to set aside the decision by which the human right or fundamental freedom was violated .

( CARDINAL ) The proceedings referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section shall be conducted by applying , mutatis mutandis , the provisions on the reopening of proceedings .

( CARDINAL ) In the reopened proceedings the courts are required to respect the legal opinions expressed in the final judgment of ORG finding a violation of a fundamental human right or freedom . ”


The applicants are relatives . They are all NORP nationals and live in PERSON . Their particulars appear in the appendix . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , their Agent .

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

Mr PERSON is the father of Mr PERSON , PERSON Konečníková and ORG . He is the husband of ORG . He operates a small entertainment park . It consists of merrygorounds and other attractions which are attached to movable trailers . The trailers have no number plates .

On DATE TIME , Mr PERSON , accompanied by PERSON , drove a tractor from the village of PERSON towing CARDINAL trailer . They stopped in front of a school in Leopoldov . Ms GPE got off the tractor and went to connect a second trailer to the convoy . A police car stopped nearby and an officer of ORG ( ORG oddelenie ORG zboru ) , PERSON , checked Mr PERSON identity card and driving licence . He inquired as to why the trailers had no number plates and then left . According to the applicants Officer PERSON shouted that he would impose a fine on Mr PERSON because “ he had an impudent [ sister ] ” and instructed them using harsh words to move on . The Government disagree on that point .

On DATE at TIME , Mr PERSON , accompanied by PERSON , again drove the tractor from PERSON towing a trailer . As they were entering the street where they lived , they noticed that a police car was behind them . They drove into the yard and stopped . The trailer protruded into the street . While PERSON was parking the tractor , a police officer from ORG , PERSON , entered the property without being invited , inquired of PERSON as to why the trailer had no number plates and asked him to produce his identity and driving documentation . Mr PERSON refused , arguing that he was on his private property . According to the applicants Officer PERSON shouted at Mr PERSON , shone an electric torch in his face and slapped him on his hand . The Government contest that suggestion . Mr PERSON then shouted to Mr PERSON for help . Officer PERSON subsequently left . During the entire incident the police car had been parked away from the scene . Officer PERSON , who was also present , remained close to the car .

On DATE , after TIME , PERSON called the police emergency service to report that his children had been attacked by Officers PERSON that evening the aforementioned officers also called the police emergency service to report the incident . They subsequently filed a report regarding the incident , which resulted in proceedings for roadtraffic offences being brought against Mr PERSON ( see below ) .

PERSON lodged numerous complaints with various public institutions about the incidents of DATE . He complained in particular that the police interventions had been unwarranted and arbitrary , that they constituted a discriminatory persecution of his family and that the subsequent investigation in respect of them was biased and ineffective . The investigation case file had been tampered with , the bodies which had examined his complaints had not been independent and impartial and the complaints were dismissed solely on the basis of the onesided information and reports submitted by the officers against whom the complaints had been directed . The applicants had not been given an opportunity to comment on the information and reports and in general had been treated in a discriminatory manner on account of their GPE origin . Lastly , PERSON argued that his trailers were exempt from the obligation to have number plates .

The above complaints were interpreted as administrative complaints ( sťažnosť ) under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) . They were examined and dismissed by ORG ( PERSON riaditeľstvo policajného zboru ) and , on repeated appeals , by ORG ( Prezídium Policajného zboru ) and ORG ( ORG kontroly a inšpekčnej služby ministerstva vnútra ) . PERSON was informed of the dismissals by letters of DATE and DATE and DATE , respectively .

The authorities examined documentary evidence and statements from Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Officers S. and P. and several other police officers . The applicant ’s allegations were found not to be established . Their complaints were thus unfounded .

The procedure and its outcome were then examined and upheld as correct by ORG , ORG and ORG on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG acknowledged that the trailers of PERSON were exempt from the duty to have number plates . It was further found that no records were missing from the case file of the investigation .

Further complaints of PERSON were dismissed by ORG on DATE , DATE and DATE and by ORG DATE respectively . The ORG allegations were found not to be substantiated .

On DATE ORG decided under LAW not to bring charges of abuse of official power against the officers involved in the incidents of CARDINAL and DATE and the alleged disappearance of documents from the case file . The examination of the files and evidence from the applicants and the officers revealed that there was no case to answer . The decision could have been , but was not , appealed .

On DATE the ORG ( ORG inšpektorát ) found that Mr PERSON had committed a traffic offence on DATE , having driven his tractor recklessly such that he could not be overtaken by a police car . The rear lights on his trailer were not functioning either . A fine of QUANTITY was imposed on him .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal by PERSON The decision could have been , but was not , challenged by an administrative - law action under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL et seq . of ORG ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) .

On DATE Mr PERSON was charged with insulting a public official , Officer PERSON , on DATE , by using grossly abusive language towards him .

On DATE ORG Okresný súd ) found Mr PERSON guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for a period of one year . ORG examined documentary evidence and heard the accused , PERSON and Officers S. and P. It “ found no reasons not to believe ” the testimonies of the latter , notwithstanding that officer PERSON had not been directly involved in the incident , his recollection of the incident was vague and his testimony at the trial had differed from his pretrial deposition .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON súd ) dismissed the appeal by Mr Baláž Jr. No further appeal was available .

On DATE and DATE PERSON reported to the police that , on DATE , she had received from an unknown person threatening , racially motivated phone calls and text messages .

The matter was investigated by the PERSON and ORG which interviewed PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and CARDINAL other persons as witnesses . The police also obtained and examined CARDINAL reports from the telephone network operators . They established that the perpetrator of the threats was a classmate of Ms Konečníková Jr. The matter was considered to be a minor offence and the case was transmitted to ORG for the initiation of proceedings under LAW .

On DATE ORG found the classmate guilty of a minor offence and sentenced him to a reprimand ( pokarhanie ) . It was observed that the wrongdoer was a minor and that he had not meant his threats to be taken seriously .


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

In DATE the applicant was dismissed , with CARDINAL months’ notice , from his post as tax inspector , and immediately suspended from office . He was deemed unable to perform his duties adequately and found to have continuously failed to comply with , or to have neglected , his obligations as a civil servant . His appeals were rejected , in the last resort by ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) .

In DATE ORG ( työttömyyskassa , arbetslöshetskassan ) for ORG refused to pay the applicant a salary - related unemployment benefit for DATE . ORG had regard to an opinion from ORG ( työvoimatoimikunta , arbetskrafts - kommissionen ) of GPE which concluded that the applicant had himself caused his dismissal . Under domestic law ORG was bound by ORG opinion . The applicant had received a copy thereof in DATE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( työttömyysturvalautakunta , arbetslöshetsnämnden ) , essentially contesting ORG opinion , as adhered to by ORG in an unsigned computer - printed decision . The appeal was first processed by ORG which requested ORG to comment on it . Having received ORG opinion , ORG forwarded it to ORG together with the appeal itself and ORG own opinion .

ORG opinion referred to ORG decision upholding the applicant ’s dismissal . The opinion further stated that no such evidence had been presented which would have warranted a change of ORG earlier opinion . ORG opinion referred to the earlier stages of the proceedings and noted that unemployment funds were authorised to dispatch electronically signed decisions . The opinion further stated that no evidence had been presented which could be considered by ORG and that , accordingly , its decision should stand .

None of the above opinions were communicated to the applicant in the proceedings before ORG . In its decision of DATE the ORG summarised the facts , the applicant ’s appeal and the opinions of ORG and ORG . ORG then dismissed the appeal , considering that a person who had himself caused the termination of his employment was not entitled to unemployment benefits for DATE . As the applicant ’s suspension from office had resulted in his dismissal , he was deemed to have caused the termination of his employment himself . He was therefore not entitled to unemployment benefits for the period in question . ORG relied on section CARDINAL of the LAW ( työttömyysturvalaki , lagen om utkomstskydd för arbetslösa CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The applicant appealed further to ORG ( vakuutusoikeus , försäkringsdomstolen ) . In an opinion requested by ORG considered that no such evidence had been presented which it had been unaware of when making its decision of DATE . Accordingly , that decision should be upheld . ORG opinion was not communicated to the applicant in the course of the proceedings . ORG also obtained from ORG its decision regarding the applicant ’s dismissal .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG , referring to the reasons stated therein .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW stipulates that a person who causes the termination of his or her employment shall not be entitled to an unemployment benefit for DATE . According to established practice , the period is shortened to DATE in certain circumstances . If a dismissal has been challenged the withdrawal of unemployment benefits should normally be based on a decision which has acquired legal force ( section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ) . The competent employment commission shall issue an opinion in respect of someone ’s entitlement to unemployment benefits . Such an opinion is binding on the competent unemployment fund ( section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ) .

According to section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , and section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , an appellant shall be given an opportunity to be heard in a matter before ORG or ORG , if such new evidence is presented of which the appellant is not aware .

At the relevant time ORG applied mainly the principles derived from the rules of procedure of the courts of appeal . Insofar as relevant , LAW provided as follows . According to LAW , sections CARDINAL , the opposing party was to be heard in proceedings before appellate courts . According to LAW , section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , a copy of the observations of the opposing party was to be forwarded to the appellant on request . According to LAW , section CARDINAL , the court of appeal was to request written observations from the parties when it obtained evidence on its own initiative and such evidence could affect the decision in the case , unless such hearing of the parties was manifestly unnecessary .

From DATE onwards ORG has been applying LAW ( hallintolainkäyttölaki , förvaltningsprocesslagen ORG ) except with regard to extraordinary proceedings , in respect of which special rules apply ( section CARDINAL of the Act on ORG , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL ) .


CASE OF GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

Preliminary objections rejected (victim, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 6-1 as regard the equality of arms;No violation of Art. 6-1 as regard the right to a fair hearing;Not necessary to examine Art. 8 and P1-1

The first CARDINAL applicants are individual NORP nationals who live in LANGUAGE ( GPE ) . The third applicant is also the chairperson and legal representative of the sixth applicant , FAC association . The first , second , fourth and fifth applicants are members of this association .

The case originated in an engineering project of DATE for the construction of a dam in GPE ( GPE ) which would result in the flooding of CARDINAL nature reserves and a number of small villages , including ORG , where the applicants live . According to the Government , the total number of landowners affected by the dam 's construction is CARDINAL , thirteen of whom live in GPE itself .

On CARDINAL DATE the Coordinadora de Itoiz association was set up ; its articles of association state , inter alia , that its aim is “ to coordinate its members ' efforts to oppose construction of the FAC dam and to campaign for an alternative way of life on the site , to represent and defend the area affected by the dam and this area 's interests before all official bodies at all levels , whether local , provincial , ORG or international , and to promote public awareness of the impact of the dam ” .

By a ministerial decree of DATE , ORG adopted the FAC dam project .

In DATE the villages concerned by the dam and the applicant association brought an administrative appeal before the Audiencia Nacional against the ministerial decree of DATE . The appeal was based on several allegations of unlawfulness which , in their opinion , had tainted the procedure for informing the public about the proposed dam , the fact that the project had been adopted without the prior approval of the hydrological plans for each river basin or of the national hydrological plan and the lack of any public or social interest served by the project . They also claimed that the project breached the legislation on environmental protection , since no environmental impact study had been commissioned . Finally , the court 's attention was drawn to the project 's impact on the nature reserves and habitat within the relevant area in the light of ORG recommendations on engineering works in the LOC and ORG common agricultural policy .

NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the Audiencia Nacional partly upheld the appeal , considering in particular that , according to the law , the planned dam should have been based on the national hydrological plan , which had not been drawn up when the project was approved . The court also accepted the request for precise designation of the protection zones around the nature reserves affected by the dam and for a breakdown of the quarry use that would be necessary for its construction .

The applicant association applied for immediate enforcement of the judgment and , in particular , for suspension of construction work on the dam . By a decision of DATE , the Audiencia Nacional granted a suspension order but directed that the necessary measures be taken to ensure the completion of work already begun and for the maintenance and safety of the work already completed , subject to the payment of security by the applicant association .

All the parties to the proceedings lodged súplica appeals against the decision of DATE . In the context of the interim enforcement of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE and , in particular , with a view to maintaining the protection zones around the CARDINAL nature reserves affected by the project , ORG , by a decision of DATE , prohibited the filling of the reservoir and displacement of the population concerned .

On DATE the parliament of ORG ( parlamento foral de Navarra ) passed Autonomous Community Law ( foral ) no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on natural sites in GPE ( “ GPE ) . This law amended LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , particularly with regard to the possibility of reclassifying the protection zones or carrying out activities within them for the purpose of introducing infrastructure that had been declared in the general or public interest . According to the applicants , this PERSON enabled construction work on the dam to continue , with the consequent deterioration of the protected natural site .

In application of ORG , ORG government adopted Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , which identified the peripheral protection zones for certain nature reserves and strict nature reserves in GPE .

In the meantime , Counsel for the ORG and the government of ORG had appealed on points of law against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . In a judgment of DATE , ORG definitively cancelled the dam project in so far as it concerned the CARDINAL-metre protection zones around nature reserves DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . As a result of the judgment , the size of the planned dam , and thus of the area to be flooded , was reduced , so that the village of GPE , where the applicants ' immovable property was located , was saved from flooding .

In application of ORG judgment , by a decision of DATE , the Audiencia Nacional declared final the interim enforcement measures ordered on DATE concerning the prohibition on filling the reservoir and other related work . Before ruling on the question of the possible suspension of construction work on a dyke , the Audiencia Nacional invited the parties to appear before it so that they could submit observations on the consequences of the new ORG law of DATE , particularly with regard to the protection zones around all the nature reserves provided for in that law , and on the impact of the maximum flood levels on the protection zones of the reserves to which the cancelled project had referred .

The central ORG authorities and ORG government argued before the Audiencia Nacional that it had become legally impossible to enforce ORG judgment of DATE , in so far as GPE law of DATE had removed protection - zone status from the area within the nature reserves that was due be flooded . Accordingly , taking that legislative amendment into account , it had become possible to carry out the public - works schemes planned within those protection zones .

The applicant association contested the authorities ' argument , claiming that ORG was inapplicable in the instant case , since it had been enacted following the administrative decisions in the proceedings in issue and subsequent to ORG judgment and the CARDINAL interim enforcement orders . In the alternative , the applicant association requested that certain provisions in ORG law be referred to ORG for a preliminary ruling on their constitutionality , particularly those authorising the removal of protection - zone status from the CARDINAL nature reserves in the area to be flooded , which , in the applicant association 's submission , would allow the work to be completed and make the reservoir cover the area specified in the original plans .

By a decision of DATE , the Audiencia Nacional asked ORG to rule on the preliminary question submitted by the applicant association .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG declared the application inadmissible on account of certain errors in its presentation which could nonetheless be corrected .

NORP In order to rectify the above - mentioned errors , the Audiencia Nacional summoned the parties on CARDINAL DATE so that it could hear their submissions on certain aspects of ORG law whose constitutionality had been challenged before ORG , and on the constitutionality of section DATE ) ( A.CARDINAL . ) and ( B ) of that law . The applicant association submitted its observations on DATE .

By a decision of DATE , the Audiencia Nacional again asked ORG to rule on the preliminary question as to constitutionality and extended the question to include a new point raised by the applicant association , namely section DATE ) ( B ) ( B.CARDINAL . ) of ORG law .

By a decision of DATE , ORG declared the issues raised in the preliminary question admissible . Under section CARDINAL ) of LAW , it gave notice of the questions to ORG , the ORG , the government and parliament of GPE and the NORP government , and invited them to file their observations within DATE . ORG received Counsel for the ORG 's observations on DATE . The government and parliament of GPE submitted their observations on CARDINAL and DATE respectively . The Attorney General 's observations were submitted on DATE . The Speaker of ORG indicated that the ORG would present no observations . The Speaker of the ORG asked that the ORG be considered a party to the proceedings and offered its assistance . On DATE the Audiencia Nacional forwarded to ORG the written pleadings submitted by the applicant association during the proceedings before it . These pleadings , dated DATE , DATE and DATE , were formally included in the case file at ORG .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG , sitting as a full court , held that the impugned provisions of ORG were compatible with LAW . It observed at the outset that enforcement of ORG judgment of DATE , delivered in accordance with ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , had become impossible since the entry into force of ORG , in that the cancelled project complied with the new law .

Examining the purpose of ORG , ORG held as follows :

“ ... Its purpose is to establish a general system for environmental protection of the natural sites in ORG . Accordingly , this protection system [ was ] applicable ... to the nature reserves already identified in the previous ORG law , even though the essential difference between the legal rules established by those QUANTITY laws lies in the arrangements regarding the peripheral protection zones . ”

ORG held , firstly , that this was not to be seen as a legislative solution for the particular problem of the CARDINAL peripheral zones around the CARDINAL nature reserves affected by construction of the LOC dam and , secondly , that statements and parliamentary initiatives by certain politicians which , in the opinion of FAC , demonstrated that the main aim of ORG was to prevent execution of ORG judgment , were immaterial in assessing whether there had been a violation of the principle of lawfulness . ORG also ruled that , given the significance of the question raised by the FAC dam 's construction , which could not simply be ignored , it was justifiable that the explanatory memorandum accompanying ORG law of DATE specifically mentioned the aim and means of environmental protection in the peripheral protection zones around the CARDINAL above - mentioned nature reserves .

As to the alleged infringement of the right to a fair hearing , in so far as GPE law of DATE now prevented execution of ORG judgment partly cancelling the FAC dam project , ORG considered that the fact that in the meantime a new law had been passed amending the legal system applicable to the peripheral protection zones and replacing the previous law on the basis of which the project had been declared partly void was not in itself incompatible with the right to execution of judicial decisions as enshrined in LAW .

Referring to the case - law of ORG and , in particular , to the judgments in ORG and GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL-B ) and PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VI ) , ORG examined whether the impossibility of executing ORG judgment as a consequence of the enactment of ORG was justified in view of the values and assets protected by LAW . Having held that environmental protection was enshrined in the LAW , ORG examined whether the prejudice arising from the failure to execute the judgment in issue was proportionate to the protected or disputed interests or was on the other hand purposeless , excessive or the cause of a clear imbalance between the interests at stake . It found that both ORG judgment of DATE and the new ORG law of DATE were intended to guarantee the existence of a peripheral protection zone around the CARDINAL nature reserves affected by the dam 's construction . ORG further noted that the system of peripheral protection zones introduced by this new law had not in itself been considered arbitrary in FAC decision ; nor had the zones ' new boundaries been held responsible for the serious deterioration of the environment . Accordingly , it held that the balance of general interests had been respected and that there was no clear lack of proportion between the conflicting interests . Consequently , the impugned provisions could not be held to be contrary to LAW .

As to the argument that the new legal rules governing the peripheral protection zones around the nature reserves appeared in a law rather than in regulations , as had previously been the case , and that this deprived the applicants of the possibility of overseeing the administration 's actions through an administrative appeal or enforcement proceedings , ORG noted that there was no legal provision requiring that certain subjects be dealt with by regulations . It added that the new law did not amount to ad causam legislation , being general in form and in substance , and pointed out that laws could be challenged before ORG through the remedy provided for in LAW .

Accordingly , ORG dismissed the application for a preliminary ruling . The judgment was published in ORG on DATE .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ The Constitutional Court shall have jurisdiction for the whole of NORP territory and is competent to hear :

( a ) NORP appeals against alleged unconstitutionality of laws and regulations having the force of law ... ;

( b ) individual appeals for protection [ recurso de amparo ] against violation of the rights and liberties referred to in LAW , in the circumstances and manner laid down by law ;

( c ) disputes between the ORG and an ORG or between different ORG over the scope of their powers .

“ If in the course of proceedings a judicial body considers that a provision which has the status of law and is applicable in the proceedings and upon whose validity its decision depends might be contrary to the LAW , it shall refer the issue to ORG in the circumstances and manner and with the effects – which shall under no circumstances include suspensive effect – to be laid down by law . ”

“ CARDINAL . Judgments of the Constitutional Court shall be published in the ORG 's ORG together with any dissenting opinions . They shall be final with effect from DATE after their publication and no appeal shall lie against them . Judgments declaring a law or a rule having the force of law unconstitutional and all judgments that are not merely in personam shall be binding on everyone .

Unless stated otherwise in the judgment , parts of the law not declared unconstitutional shall remain in force . ”

The relevant provisions of this law read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . When judges or courts , of their own motion or at the request of a party , consider that a provision which has the status of law and is applicable in the proceedings and upon whose validity its decision depends might be contrary to the LAW , they shall refer the matter to ORG , in accordance with the provisions of the present PERSON .

The judge or court concerned shall make the referral only when the case is ready for trial and within the time allowed for giving judgment . They must specify which law or provision having the status of law is alleged to be unconstitutional and which LAW is considered to have been breached . They must also state the precise reasons why the outcome of the proceedings depends on the validity of the contested provision . Before taking a final decision on whether to refer an issue to ORG , the judge or court shall first hear any representations the parties and a representative of ORG may wish to make regarding the relevance of the issue within a DATE non - extendable time - limit that shall apply to each of them . The judge shall give his or her decision within DATE thereafter , no further action being required . No appeal shall lie against that decision . However , the constitutionality issue may be raised again in subsequent proceedings until such time as the judgment has become final . ”

“ A judge or court shall refer constitutionality issues to ORG by sending a certified copy of the main case file and any representations made under DATE . ”

“ CARDINAL . On receipt of the case file the Constitutional Court shall follow the procedure laid down in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article . However , it may in a reasoned decision declare the question referred inadmissible after hearing representations by the Attorney General alone if the procedural requirements have not been complied with or the question referred is manifestly ill - founded .

The Constitutional Court shall inform ORG and the ORG ( through their respective Speakers ) , the Attorney General and the Government ( through ORG ) of the question referred . If it concerns a law or a provision having the status of law adopted by ORG , the legislative and executive authorities of that Community shall also be informed . Each of these bodies shall be entitled to appear before ORG and to make representations on the constitutionality issue within a non - extendable DATE time - limit that shall apply to each of them . Once that period has expired , the Constitutional Court shall give judgment within DATE , unless it gives a reasoned decision explaining why it considers a longer period – not exceeding DATE – to be necessary . ”

The explanatory memorandum to ORG law of DATE states that the text has CARDINAL objectives : first of all , it establishes a legal system specific to GPE in order to safeguard , preserve and improve those parts of its territory which contain natural assets worthy of protection in accordance with NORP legislation and ORG directives on environmental protection ; secondly , the law is intended to harmonise the legislation on natural sites enacted by ORG .

In particular , the law lists the nature reserves and natural sites in GPE which are protected by law and establishes their boundaries . It also sets out , for each type of protected site , the types of activity and use which are authorised or prohibited . Section CARDINAL reads as follows :

Through an autonomous law , the parliament of GPE may identify the boundaries of ... peripheral protection zones around the Strict Nature Reserves and Nature Reserves , which may be discontinuous and shall be intended to avoid external impact on the environment or landscape .

The regulations governing activities and land use within the peripheral protection zones of the Strict Nature Reserves , Nature Reserves and PERSON shall be as follows :

( A ) Non - construction activities

( A.CARDINAL . ) The following may be authorised :

– Activities related to the creation of infrastructure which is in the public or general interest .

( B. ) ORG activities

( B.CARDINAL . ) The following may be authorised :

– Infrastructure declared to be in the public or general interest .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Loukis Loucaides;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant took part in the cleaning up operation after the nuclear accident at the GPE nuclear plant . He was subsequently registered disabled , becoming entitled to various social benefits , including the right to obtain a loan on preferential terms ( льготный кредит ) and free housing from the ORG .

According to the ORG , the applicant lived in a CARDINAL - room flat with CARDINAL other members of his family . The flat measured QUANTITY . In DATE this flat was officially categorised as a “ communal dwelling ” which gave the applicant the right to claim free housing from the ORG .

On an unspecified date the applicant requested ORG ( a bank controlled by the State – hereafter “ the bank ” ) to provide him with a preferential loan to purchase housing for himself and his family . However , he did not obtain the loan . Apparently there had been no agreement between the ORG and the banks regulating the allocation of such credits to GPE victims .

In DATE the applicant brought proceedings against the ORG and the bank , seeking to obtain a preferential loan , as provided by the PERSON on the welfare of GPE victims ( “ the LAW ” – see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE decided the case in his favour . It found that the applicant , as a GPE victim , had the right to a preferential loan under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , but ORG had not yet signed an agreement with banks on the procedure for issuing such loans . ORG ordered ORG to secure the applicant 's right to the loan . That judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE . The writ of execution was forwarded to the bailiff in GPE , and on DATE enforcement proceedings were commenced .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG informed the applicant that the judgment of DATE could not be enforced since the law relating to the federal budget did not allow the allocation of preferential loans to GPE victims .

DATE , referring to the lack of progress in the enforcement proceedings , the applicant requested the court to modify the operative part of the judgment of DATE . He sought to obtain compensation of PERCENT of the amount he needed to buy a flat . On DATE ORG modified the judgment of DATE ordering the ORG to compensate the applicant for the cost of the flat he would buy .

On DATE the applicant purchased a CARDINAL - room flat in a house under construction from a developer . He paid MONEY ( RUB ) for that flat .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to the district court for fresh examination . There is no information as to whether the applicant 's request concerning the modification of the original judgment of DATE was eventually satisfied .

On DATE , referring to the provisions of LAW , the applicant brought proceedings against the municipality of GPE seeking an order to oblige them to provide him with a flat in GPE . On DATE the Presnenskiy District Court of GPE dismissed his claim . On DATE ORG upheld the district court 's decision .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against the local municipality of GPE claiming free accommodation . On DATE ORG of GPE ruled in his favour and ordered the municipality to provide the applicant with appropriate housing for a family of CARDINAL within DATE , in accordance with existing housing and sanitary standards . That judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE . On DATE the bailiffs initiated enforcement proceedings .

On an unspecified date the municipality requested the court to stay the enforcement proceedings . They claimed that they had no free housing available to enforce the judgment of DATE . The applicant objected ; he also asked the court to specify how the judgment of CARDINAL DATE should be enforced .

By a supplementary judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the request of the municipality . The court also held that housing should be given to the applicant under a protected tenancy agreement . The court further held that the applicant had the right to acquire the housing through privatisation in accordance with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . In the operative part of the supplementary judgment the court held as follows :

“ [ the applicant ] should be provided with housing either [ on the basis of ] a social tenancy or ... by way of transfer [ of housing ] into his ownership . ”

That judgment was not appealed against and became final .

On DATE the applicant registered himself as the owner of another flat in GPE , which he had purchased some time earlier from a developer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the municipality formally deprived the applicant of the status of a person in need of better housing . On CARDINAL DATE the municipality tried to reopen the case which had ended with the judgment of DATE , claiming that the applicant was no longer entitled to better housing . However , on DATE the court refused to reopen the case .

On DATE the municipality offered the applicant a CARDINAL - room flat . According to the Government , since the flat offered to the applicant was smaller than the one awarded by the court judgment , the municipality also offered the applicant compensation to cover the difference . However , the applicant refused to accept the flat and the compensation .

NORP In DATE the applicant was offered a CARDINAL - room flat . However , he did not accept the offer .

On DATE the municipality provided the applicant with another CARDINAL - room flat . On DATE the applicant signed a declaration which was formulated as follows :

“ I declare that I accept , in execution of the judgment of DATE ... , ... the CARDINAL - room flat situated at CARDINAL , FAC , ... measuring QUANTITY .

Taking into account the decision of ORG of DATE , the flat should either be transferred into my ownership or the social tenancy agreement should stipulate that ... ' the owner shall transfer the flat into the ownership of the tenant at his first request . '

Otherwise I shall not consider that the judgment of the court is executed . ”

On DATE the applicant received the keys to flat no . DATE , CARDINAL , FAC . However , it appears that another tenant had already obtained the title to the flat by that time . Thus , on DATE the municipality decided to allocate another flat to the applicant ( no . DATE ) . The applicant accepted the flat , and on DATE he signed a social tenancy agreement with the municipality .

On DATE the Mayor of GPE wrote a letter to the applicant stating that “ flat no . DATE would be transferred to the applicant , free of charge ” .

The PERSON on social protection of citizens exposed to radiation as a result of ORG explosion ( “ the LAW ” ) of CARDINAL DATE , as in force at the material time , provides that persons who were registered disabled following their exposure to radioactive emissions are entitled to certain social benefits . In particular , they were entitled to free housing , where their existing accommodation did not comply with minimum housing standards ( “ a person in need of better housing ” ) . The ORG undertook to provide such persons with accommodation within DATE of placing them on a waiting list . The same law entitled them to obtain preferential credit - an interest - free loan for buying or constructing a house . It also provided that MONEY of the amount of the loan would be paid off by the ORG ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) , under the condition that they are in need of better housing .

The PERSON of DATE on the federal budget for DATE suspended the application of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW until DATE because of the lack of funds . In DATE the application of this paragraph was repeatedly suspended by the laws relating to the federal budget .

On DATE the law commonly known as “ ORG ” was passed ( PERSON no . PERSON ) . That PERSON abrogated various non - monetary social benefits granted by the previous legislation ( free housing , free medicine and so on ) or replaced them with monetary payments . LAW ( CARDINAL) of that PERSON modified the wording of LAW . In particular , the right to receive preferential loans from the ORG was excluded from the list of social benefits to which the GPE victims were entitled .

For provisions governing the right to “ social tenancy ” of ORG - owned housing see Malinovskiy v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL et seq . , ECHR DATE ... ( extracts ) ) .

Under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , a court judgment which has acquired legal force is binding and must be executed .