The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , a married couple who were born on DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

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

The first applicant is a mother of CARDINAL children : Em . PERSON , born DATE , Ew . ORG , born in DATE , PERSON . PERSON , born in DATE , GPE . PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE and PERSON , born in DATE .

On DATE the ORG divested the first applicant of her parental rights in respect of her then CARDINAL children : Em . PERSON , NORP . PERSON . PERSON , GPE . PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Later on , PERSON and PERSON were adopted by another family , and for Em . PERSON , NORP . PERSON . PERSON and GPE . PERSON the court established a foster family , the first applicant 's parents , the grandparents of the children .

On DATE the first applicant 's first husband PERSON , the father of CARDINAL of her children : PERSON . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , died .

On DATE the ORG restricted the exercise of the applicant 's custody rights in respect of the other CARDINAL children , PERSON and PERSON , in such a manner that the court appointed a guardian to monitor the family . In both decisions , given in DATE and in DATE , the court considered that the mother had been manifestly neglecting her parental duties towards the children and abused alcohol .

In DATE PERSON was born . Later on , PERSON . was established to be the father of this child in a judgment of ORG of DATE .

In DATE PERSON , the first applicant 's parents , requested ORG to divest the first applicant of her parental rights and establish them grandparents as a foster family also for PERSON , ORG and PERSON

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court divested the first applicant of her parental rights in respect of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , decided to place them in public care and appointed guardians for all CARDINAL children . The court also refused to appoint the grandparents as the foster family .

The court first recalled the decisions of DATE and DATE as the background of the case . The case - files of these CARDINAL sets of the proceedings were before the court . It further noted that even after the decision of DATE had been given , the first applicant exercised her parental rights in a manner open to criticism - she abused alcohol , was promiscuous and did not take proper care of the children , who were dirty and did not have adequate clothes . The efforts of the guardians , the local social assistance worker and the police to make the applicant comply with her parental obligations had proved successful only for short periods of time , after the talks they had with her .

After PERSON . , the father of PERSON , had died on an unspecified date , the applicant began a relationship with another man , PERSON At the beginning she slightly improved her ways towards the children , but later on they started to drink alcohol together , PERSON battered the first applicant and her children , and on several occasions the police intervened .

It further noted that on DATE the first applicant left home without leaving any contact address . PERSON and her parents took care of the CARDINAL children . The grandparents had been unable to take proper care of the older CARDINAL children , in respect of whom they had been appointed foster parents in DATE . The flat was dirty and they lacked basic personal hygiene habits . The flat was also relatively small and disorderly and the children did not have any table on which to do their homework . Despite the fact that the foster family had an income of CARDINAL ORG , which could not be considered small , this was not reflected in the quality of material conditions of the children 's lives . The grandparents also had a certain tendency to abuse alcohol , and did not deny , when asked by the court , that from time to time they liked to drink . They were unwilling to co - operate with the guardians appointed by the court . In particular the first applicant 's mother had tried to hide from the guardians the educational problems she had with the eldest daughter Em . , whose behaviour had begun to resemble that of her mother . They also failed to comply with the guardian 's suggestions to try to isolate the children from the pathogenic influence of the mother .

Since the CARDINAL children had been placed in public care , their older siblings , grandparents and mother visited them very often . These children were nervous , seriously retarded in their emotional and intellectual development and wet their beds during TIME .

It further considered that the conduct of the first applicant towards her children was such as to justify the conclusion that she had been consistently neglecting them . This was highlighted by , inter alia , the fact that in DATE she had left home - not for the first time - for DATE , leaving no contact address and leaving the children under the care of her then partner , who had beaten them in the past . The court observed that the first applicant must have had strong sexual urges , as shown by the number of children she had by different men . She had often and casually taken up new relationships with men and was entirely absorbed by her personal life , to the detriment of the children . This demonstrated that she lacked the responsibility and maturity which were necessary for ensuring a proper care for her children and for ensuring that they were brought up in an atmosphere of love and stability . The court stressed that it had been the first applicant 's parents themselves who had requested that she be divested of her parental rights . The first applicant , in the light of her consistent conduct , had not given any guarantees that she would mend her ways . The prior decisions of the courts to divest her of parental rights were proved to be correct , and the same decision in respect of the further CARDINAL children was called for .

The court further considered the request of the first applicant 's parents to appoint them as a foster family . The court referred to the best interest of the CARDINAL younger children , who , in view of their state needed conscientious professional care . The ageing grandparents were clearly unable to ensure such care for them , as shown by the fact that their care in respect of the older children had already proved inadequate . They limited their role to ensuring basic living conditions , but their educational skills left much to be desired .

The court acknowledged that the first applicant 's parents loved their grandchildren , but the emotional state of the younger children and the delays in normal development warranted their placing in public care . This solution was dictated by their best interests : they should be permanently separated from their mother so that she would not have any detrimental influence on their education . Thus , the placing of the children in public care , with a view to a possible adoption , would ensure their normal and healthy development .

The following evidence was relied on : the testimony of the first applicant 's parents , her own testimony , the case - files of the previous proceedings , the testimony of the guardian appointed to monitor the family , the reports she had prepared from the monitoring exercise and the report on the children drafted by the staff of the local emergency public care centre in which the CARDINAL children had been placed .

The court relied on LAW , item CARDINAL , of ORG .

The first applicant and her parents appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG upheld the contested decision . The court observed that the lower court , when taking its decision , had primarily had regard to the best interests of the children and had carefully reasoned its decision . It had had regard to the opinion prepared by the local public care centre as to the children 's state , which certified that they had been badly neglected . It had also questioned the guardian , who stated , in particular , that the first applicant 's parents used to drink occasionally , as they had themselves confirmed before the court . The lower court had further taken into consideration that the first applicant 's parents lacked parenting skills as shown by the difficulties they had with the older children : Em . had schooling problems and was very often absent , PERSON . was in a school for retarded children and therefore needed special attention , PERSON . was neglected , dirty , and also had school problems and was , as a result , ostracised by other pupils .

It was stressed that the placing of the children in a public care did not mean that all contacts with their family would be cut . It remained open to them to visit the children at the children 's home , and to take them for holidays , if the family court decided that this was appropriate .

It further examined the first applicant 's appeal . It noted that she had stated that she had a new partner whom she wished to marry . This , in the court 's opinion , did not amount to a convincing argument that she would mend her ways : in the past it was primarily the applicant 's new relationships with her successive partners which had made her focus entirely on her personal life and neglect her mothering obligations . Thus , the fact that she had a new partner did not guarantee in itself that she would take adequate care of her children . It also noted that the new partner , the second applicant , did not himself provide any guarantees in this respect , given that he had allowed her to live with him for DATE and had disregarded the fact that she left her children for DATE without any information about her whereabouts .

The court concluded that the decision of the lower court , upheld by ORG , was lawful and justified .

ORG PERSON i GPE ) of DATE provides :

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . If the interests of a child are in danger , the court shall issue a relevant order .

In particular , the court may :

CARDINAL ) decide that the child should be placed in the custody of a public care institution ( ... ) ”

Pursuant to LAW , if parental rights can not be exercised due to a permanent obstacle , or if parents abuse their rights , or neglect their children in a flagrant manner , the family court shall divest them of their parental rights . If the grounds on which the parental rights had been withdrawn , cease to exist , the court may restore the rights to the parents .

Under LAW , the duties and rights connected with carrying out the day - to - day care and educational obligations in respect of the children who have been placed in a public care institution or with a foster family , are carried out by the institution or by the foster family .

According to LAW , the family court shall , if the best interest of the child so requires , prohibit access to the child by parents who have been divested of their parental rights .


Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

According to the applicant , he was in pre - trial detention in Prison no . CARDINAL in PERSON ( previously known as Prison no . CARDINAL ) when he was approached on DATE by a prison officer and requested to move to cell CARDINAL . The applicant refused to do so until he was given an explanation for the reason for his transfer .

On DATE CARDINAL officers approached him and requested him to follow them . As they reached cell CARDINAL he was ordered to go into that cell , which was empty . He refused , asking for an explanation from the prison administration , but was then allegedly assaulted by the officers , helped by CARDINAL other staff members , who punched and kicked him and hit him with rubber truncheons , then banged his head against the wall , causing him severe pain . They swore at him and told him that they were fed up with his complaints about various alleged violations of his rights . When he could no longer resist , he was pushed into cell CARDINAL , where he ran to the window and broke it , took a piece of glass and slit his wrist in the hope that that would stop the ill - treatment and would ensure a visit from a doctor . However , the assailants continued to beat him up in the cell , and then took him to a psychiatrist .

According to the ORG , the applicant refused all medical assistance on DATE . According to the applicant , he refused assistance from the doctors of Prison no . CARDINAL , who were his attackers’ colleagues and could not be trusted to be independent and impartial in their findings .

On DATE the applicant complained to the governor of Prison no . CARDINAL that he had been ill - treated by prison staff and asked to be seen by medical experts and by representatives of ORG . He declared himself to be on hunger strike until those visits took place . On DATE , the prison administration informed ORG that the applicant was on hunger strike and of the reasons for that form of protest , namely a request to be visited by ORG and a medical expert .

On DATE the applicant ’s complaint of ill - treatment was registered with ORG .

On DATE the applicant stopped his hunger strike , informing the prison administration that the reason was his poor state of health . He referred to the failure to allow him to be seen by a medical expert or ORG . On DATE , the prison administration informed ORG that the applicant had stopped his hunger strike .

Also on CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to ORG that he had been ill - treated . In reply , the head of ORG of ORG informed the applicant that his complaint had been examined and found to be untrue . In fact , owing to his refusal to comply with the lawful order to move to cell CARDINAL , he had been taken there after being handcuffed .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE police station so that he could attend a hearing of his criminal case on DATE in that town . Excerpts from his medical file from his stay in that prison included the following statements :

On DATE : multiple cuts on his left hand ; the applicant complains of pain in the thoracic region and the back ; need for an examination by a traumatology doctor and a neurologist and for an X - ray of the thoracic region .

On DATE : the patient declares that DATE he was ill - treated by the staff of Prison no . CARDINAL in PERSON , when he was kicked in the ribs and liver . At present he complains of pain in the region of ribs nos . V - IX on the right side , with greater pain when breathing in or during physical effort . Recommendation : X - ray of the thoracic region in order to exclude broken bones .

On CARDINAL DATE : the applicant complains of pain in the left leg , where there is a brownish - grey haematoma measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY . On the left hand there is a haematoma measuring QUANTITY and a moderately severe graze measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY covered with a brown - red crust under the skin .

During the court hearing on DATE the applicant complained of ill - treatment on DATE and asked to be seen by a medical expert to have his injuries confirmed . The court decided to request the doctor from the LOC police station to examine the applicant . It also instructed the applicant to ask for a medical examination at Prison no . CARDINAL on his return there .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant made another complaint of ill - treatment to ORG . He mentioned , inter alia , his request to be seen by a medical expert , which had been refused . He also stated that he had CARDINAL witnesses who could confirm his statements .

According to excerpts from the applicant ’s medical file in Prison no . CARDINAL , on CARDINAL DATE a medical report was produced which stated “ the applicant categorically refused to undergo a medical examination ” . On DATE another medical report was produced , which stated that the applicant had CARDINAL cuts on his hand .

According to documents submitted by the Government , the applicant is considered a violent person prone to conflicts with the prison administration and other detainees , due to which conduct he has been disciplined on many occasions . CARDINAL such disciplinary measure was applied in DATE , after the applicant had attacked another detainee . All other disciplinary measures concern the events of CARDINAL DATE and thereafter . In their subsequent observations , the Government acknowledged that a number of the decisions to discipline the applicant had been overturned , on procedural grounds , by the courts .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office informed the applicant that on DATE it had decided not to initiate criminal proceedings concerning his complaint of ill - treatment , since no crime had been committed .

On DATE ORG overturned the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE and ordered a re - examination of the case by the prosecutor . The court found , inter alia , that the prosecutor had not heard detainees identified by the applicant as having witnessed the ill - treatment . Moreover , no request had been made to PERSON police station for the medical documents concerning the injuries noted on the applicant ’s body when he was transferred to that prison on DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor adopted another decision , refusing to initiate a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment . He noted that the applicant ’s complaint had been received on DATE . He relied on the medical documents produced in Prison no . CARDINAL , which did not confirm the applicant ’s allegation of ill - treatment on DATE . He also referred to the fact that the applicant was considered hostile to the prison administration , for which attitude he had been punished many times . Moreover , his resistance to the lawful orders of the prison staff on DATE , during which he had threatened the lives of prison staff , was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation .

On DATE the applicant asked the governor of Prison no . CARDINAL for the video recording of the events of CARDINAL DATE . He submitted that he had made similar requests on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , but had received no response .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE , finding that the prosecutor had disregarded the court decision of DATE by failing to ask for the medical documents and not hearing the witnesses identified by the applicant . Moreover , the applicant had submitted transcripts of court hearings during which those witnesses had confirmed the applicant ’s statements concerning ill - treatment . The court ordered a re - examination of the case by the prosecutor .

On DATE the prosecutor adopted another decision , refusing to initiate a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment . The prosecutor relied on the same arguments as those in his decision of CARDINAL DATE . In addition , he referred to CARDINAL witnesses ( PERSON and ORG ) who had declared that they and others had been asked by the applicant to sign a petition declaring that they had witnessed his ill - treatment . They had not seen any ill - treatment , but had signed “ to do him a favour ” . Since the applicant was being examined by a psychiatric panel , it had been impossible to obtain further details from him .

On DATE ORG rejected the LOC the staff of Prison no . CARDINAL and examining the applicant ’s medical reports from that prison . Also , CARDINAL witnesses ( referred to in the previous paragraph ) stated that they and everybody else in the cell had signed the petition supporting the applicant to do him a favour , but they had not seen any ill - treatment . CARDINAL of them added that he had been in a cell near cell CARDINAL and had heard screams , which had made him think that the applicant had been ill - treated , but he had not witnessed any ill - treatment . As for the alleged ill - treatment at GPE police station , that had already been investigated in a previous case and did not need to be investigated again .

NORP Moreover , the applicant was considered hostile to the prison administration , an attitude for which he had been punished many times . In addition , his resistance to the lawful orders of the prison staff on DATE , during which he had threatened the lives of prison staff , was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation .

On DATE the applicant complained to the governor of Prison no . CARDINAL , asking for access to the video recordings made on DATE . In reply he was informed that such video materials were routinely destroyed TIME after DATE of filming .

On an unknown date after the events on DATE mentioned above , a prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for threatening officers of Prison no . CARDINAL with violence . That case was joined with another case against the applicant , in which he was accused of murder .

During court hearings on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL witnesses were heard , who had been detainees in Prison no . CARDINAL at the time of the events . Witness PERSON stated that he had been detained in cell PERSON near cell CARDINAL , and had seen the applicant being kicked while on the ground by several prison staff members . He did not hear the applicant swear or throw anything ; he had only been shouting at them to stop beating him and asking to be seen by the prison governor . Some CARDINAL detainees in his cell signed a petition in which they confirmed the applicant ’s ill - treatment . Thereafter the prison staff started intimidating them . PERSON was personally threatened to induce him to declare that he had not seen anything .

NORP Witness PERSON . was detained in GPE police station when the applicant was detained there in a neighbouring cell . He could see the applicant when the latter was taken to the toilet , CARDINAL naked , and saw that the applicant had several “ apple - size ” haematomas on his body .

NORP Witness GPE stated that on DATE he was returning together with other detainees from outside the prison under escort and saw a detainee on the floor of cell CARDINAL , covered in blood , and being kicked by CARDINAL or CARDINAL prison officers . In TIME he was able to approach cell CARDINAL and ask the person inside whether he needed anything . The person replied that he needed to be seen by a doctor . However , when GPE told the doctor about that , the latter replied that he had been ordered not to go to cell CARDINAL . Another staff member then told him that the applicant was in cell CARDINAL .

NORP Witness GPE . stated that he had seen the applicant being taken somewhere by CARDINAL prison staff members , with his hands behind his back , his face almost on the ground , and being beaten on the way .

Witness G.I. stated that he had been transferred to PERSON police station on DATE as the applicant , and that they were placed together in the same cell . The applicant then told him about the ill - treatment and showed the signs of ill - treatment on his body . He was in a bad shape and could not sleep .

Witness ORG had not seen the applicant in the relevant period and had only heard from another detainee that the latter had witnessed the applicant ’s ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of the murder of CARDINAL person and the attempted murder of another . He was also convicted of threatening with violence CARDINAL officers of Prison no . CARDINAL who had been escorting him to another cell . In this latter respect , the court summarised the witness statements made by various prison officers and detainees ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The court considered that the detainees who had confirmed the applicant ’s statements concerning his ill - treatment by the prison officers who accused him of threatening them , had made the statements to protect the applicant from criminal liability .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment . In respect of the events of CARDINAL DATE the court referred to the applicant ’s punishment for breaching prison regulations on DATE and the results of the medical examination of some of the staff attacked by the applicant on DATE . It considered , like the lower court , that the statements by other detainees had been made with the aim of helping the applicant avoid criminal responsibility . The court added that the applicant ’s complaints of ill - treatment had been the subject of a separate investigation , and that similar complaints were being examined .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts’ judgments . That judgment was final .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil court action against Prison no . CARDINAL , ORG , ORG and ORG , asking them to determine that he had been ill - treated on DATE in Prison no . CARDINAL , and claiming damages .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s action as unfounded , finding that he could not claim any compensation without a criminal conviction of the prison officers he had accused of ill - treatment . During the hearing on DATE the applicant noted that the prosecutor had been well aware of the existence of video materials , as well as that they had been destroyed very soon afterwards , but had done nothing to obtain the materials in order to substantiate his complaint of ill - treatment . In reply , a prosecutor representing ORG informed the court that the prosecution had been aware of the fact that Prison no . CARDINAL was under video surveillance , but had decided at that time that video recording was not necessary in view of the other materials in the file , which were sufficient to adopt a lawful decision . Moreover , the materials had been destroyed by the time the verification had taken place .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court judgment .


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

NORP In DATE the GPE public prosecutor 's office ( ORG ) started investigations against the applicant and a number of other people suspected of fraud .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) issued a warrant for the arrest of the applicant and CARDINAL other suspects , PERSON and Ms L. , on suspicion of criminal association , drug trafficking and several counts of fraud .

In its decision , ORG noted that the suspects had been charged with having founded – towards DATE an association for the purpose of gaining large profits from fraudulent trading in options . Moreover , as from DATE the suspects had agreed to import cocaine from GPE to GPE and to sell it there . Several accomplices had been recruited as members of the criminal organisation and had been involved in the numerous criminal offences . As regards the fraudulent trading in options , CARDINAL victims had been defrauded by the criminal association between DATE , and they had lost a total of MONEY . Moreover , DATE and DATE QUANTITY of cocaine had been imported to and sold in GPE . ORG found that , having regard to the statements made by some witnesses and the defendants , the results of the telephone - tapping operations and other results of the investigations , there was a strong suspicion that the applicant , PERSON and Ms L. had committed the criminal offences in question .

ORG also considered that there was a danger of absconding within the meaning of LAW of LAW ( GPE ) . In this respect , the court found that , taking into account the seriousness of the offences with which the suspects were charged and the importance of the damage they had caused , they had to expect a long term of imprisonment . Moreover , the suspects obviously had sufficient financial means to abscond . According to ORG , there was also a danger of collusion within the meaning of LAW of LAW , since , as members of a criminal association , the suspects were accustomed to disguising the extent of their activities by having recourse to “ men of straw ” and fictitious contracts , and were therefore likely to suppress evidence or influence witnesses .

The applicant was arrested on DATE . In the presence of his defence counsel , PERSON , he was informed by the detention judge ( LOC ) of the charges against him and of the arrest warrant of DATE . The applicant did not make a statement . He requested an oral hearing on the lawfulness of his detention ( GPE ) but later withdrew his request .

According to the applicant , his counsel applied DATE to the GPE public prosecutor 's office for leave to consult the investigation files , but his request was rejected on the ground that access to those documents would endanger the course of the investigations . However , neither the request nor its dismissal are recorded in the files of the public prosecutor 's office .

In the ensuing proceedings , counsel for the applicant was joined by a colleague , Mr PERSON .

On DATE the applicant , in the presence of defence counsel , was questioned by the police about the charges against him . He indicated that he had , in the meantime , repeatedly consulted his counsel . In the course of further interrogations on CARDINAL and DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE , mostly in the presence of counsel , the applicant was questioned in detail about the charges against him , in particular about the contents of telephone calls which had been recorded by tapping under an order made in DATE .

On DATE ORG amended the arrest warrant , adding in particular further charges of tax evasion , corruption , incitement to make a false entry in official records and making a false affidavit . ORG confirmed that there was still a danger of the applicant and other suspects absconding and that less stringent measures could be taken only in the case of PERSON Consequently the execution of the warrant for PERSON arrest could be suspended , whereas the applicant and PERSON had to be further remanded in custody .

On DATE the applicant was informed of the amended arrest warrant . His counsel then applied for access to the files . No action was taken on that request as the duplicate copy of the files had already been forwarded to ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) for the purposes of the review proceedings , while the original files were needed for the purposes of the continuing investigations .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor 's office ( PERSON ) requested the prolongation of the applicant 's and PERSON detention on remand . In this request , to which CARDINAL investigation files were attached , the public prosecutor noted the history of the detention proceedings and summarised the offences of which the suspects were accused . As to the factual details , he referred to the arrest warrant and a police report of DATE which were to be found in the attached files . According to the public prosecutor , the strong suspicion against the suspects was based on the statements of the suspects and of witnesses , the opinion of a stockbroking expert , records of telephone tapping and seized business documents , which were all included in the investigation files . He also confirmed that there was a danger of absconding .

In his reply of DATE , the applicant 's defence counsel applied to ORG for access to the files , for an oral hearing on the question of the applicant 's continued detention and for his release . He submitted that he could not comment in detail on the public prosecutor 's submission as , despite repeated promises , he had not yet been granted access to the investigation files , and the public prosecutor 's submissions were fragmentary and therefore did not provide a sufficient basis for him to rely on .

According to a handwritten file note drafted by ORG rapporteur , the applicant 's counsel , in answer to a telephone query , had agreed to a decision on the question of the applicant 's continued detention on remand being taken without him having been given access to the files beforehand . However , according to the applicant , as confirmed by his counsel , PERSON , and the latter 's colleague , PERSON , the rapporteur and counsel had agreed that counsel could not comment on the question of the applicant 's continued detention on remand without having had access to the files and that ORG judge would therefore arrange for a consultation of the files .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant 's continued detention on remand .

ORG , having regard to the result of the investigations thus far , in particular the applicant 's and the co - suspects ' statements , the statements of the victims , the records of telephone tapping , seized business documents and the provisional opinion of a stockbroking expert , confirmed that there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question . As regards the danger of the applicant 's absconding , ORG noted that he had substantial financial means and real property in GPE . Moreover , until his arrest , he had had contacts in GPE , GPE and GPE .

ORG also considered that the applicant 's continued detention on remand was not disproportionate . As to the conduct of the investigation proceedings , ORG observed that the complex nature and the scope of the investigations had not yet enabled a judgment to be reached . In this connection , ORG noted that the investigation files already comprised CARDINAL volumes , the indictment being envisaged for DATE . Finally , ORG stated that there had been no need for an oral review hearing .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor 's office decided to allow the applicant 's defence counsel to consult the investigation files . According to the applicant , CARDINAL of the then CARDINAL files were made available . They were returned in DATE . According to the applicant , his counsel applied for further consultation of the files at DATE .

On DATE , following changes in the jurisdiction of the courts , the PERSON public prosecutor 's office requested ORG to order the applicant 's continued detention on remand . The public prosecutor 's office enclosed the criminal files , which comprised CARDINAL volumes and CARDINAL subsidiary files ( PERSON ) .

In his written submission of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant 's counsel stated that he had thus far been able to consult CARDINAL volumes of the criminal files and that he could not , therefore , add anything to his previous observations .

On DATE the ORG granted the request of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the applicant 's continued detention on remand .

ORG considered that the reasons stated in ORG previous decision remained valid . Moreover , the investigations had progressed . The police had prepared an intermediate report in DATE and indicated that the questioning of CARDINAL witnesses had almost been completed . The final police report and the report of the tax - investigation authorities had been announced for DATE . The public prosecutor 's office envisaged preparing the bill of indictment immediately afterwards . Thus the obligation to conduct the proceedings expeditiously had not been disregarded .

ORG further found that the applicant 's complaint under LAW about the lack of access to the investigation files did not affect the validity of the arrest warrant .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint ( ORG ) about the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , complaining in particular about the lack of sufficient access to the investigation files . In this respect , he stressed that he had been granted access to CARDINAL volumes of the investigation files which , at that time , comprised CARDINAL volumes altogether . He and his defence counsel had not , therefore , been able to comment properly on the accusation against him and to exercise the defence rights effectively .

On DATE ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) decided not to entertain the applicant 's complaint .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor 's office drew up the bill of indictment ( PERSON ) against the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused , who were charged with various criminal offences . As far as the applicant was concerned , the bill of indictment mentioned CARDINAL counts of fraud , corruption , incitement to make a false entry in an official record and swearing a false affidavit . The proceedings relating to the charges of tax evasion were severed from these main proceedings . Prosecution for unlawful association was discontinued in view of the seriousness of the other charges . The bill of indictment , which set out in detail the charges against the applicant , the relevant facts and the evidence , was served on the applicant 's counsel on DATE .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor 's office forwarded copies of the investigation files , namely CARDINAL main and CARDINAL supplementary volumes ( CARDINAL pages altogether ) to the applicant 's defence counsel for consultation . It requested that they be returned within DATE to allow consultation by the other defence counsel . On DATE the office sent a reminder regarding the return of the files . The date of their return was not recorded . According to the applicant , the copies made available to his counsel were not complete .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant 's continued detention on remand . Upon request by counsel of CARDINAL of the applicant 's co - accused , the decision had to be adjourned for DATE in order to allow an adequate opportunity for submissions to be filed .

ORG confirmed the findings as laid down in the earlier decisions of DATE and DATE . As regards the charges against the applicant , ORG noted the changes resulting from the bill of indictment , which did not include the charges of founding a criminal association and of tax evasion . The prosecution regarding the first of these charges had been discontinued in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW , in view of the minor importance of the offence as compared to those set out in the bill of indictment . As regards the tax - evasion offence , further investigations were pending .

ORG also considered that the investigations had progressed . The bill of indictment had meanwhile been drawn up and forwarded to ORG at ORG ( ORG ) . ORG had started examining the complex case and envisaged , if the main trial proceedings were to begin , starting the hearings in DATE .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant 's release . ORG confirmed that there was still a strong case against the applicant and that the reasons for detaining him on remand remained ; however , his continued detention had ceased to be proportionate . ORG considered , in particular , that since DATE ORG had not made progress in the proceedings . The applicant was released from detention DATE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of fraud , bribery and swearing a false affidavit and sentenced him to an aggregate term of DATE and DATE imprisonment .

Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( GPE ) concern the arrest and detention of a person on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence . According to LAW , a person may be detained on remand if there is a strong suspicion that he or she has committed a criminal offence and if there is a reason for arrest , such as the risk of absconding or the risk of collusion . LAW regulates the suspension of the execution of an arrest warrant .

Under LAW , remand prisoners can ask at any time for judicial review of the arrest warrant . An oral hearing will be held at the request of the remand prisoner , or if the court so decides of its own motion ( LAW ) . If the arrest warrant is held to be valid following the hearing , the remand prisoner is entitled to a new oral hearing only if the detention has lasted for DATE altogether and if DATE have elapsed since the last oral hearing ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL provides that an arrest warrant has to be quashed if reasons justifying the detention on remand no longer persist or if the continued detention appears disproportionate . Any prolongation of detention on remand beyond DATE is to be decided by ORG ( ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure concern the defence of a person charged with having committed a criminal offence , in particular the choice of defence counsel or appointment of official defence counsel . According to LAW , defence counsel is entitled to consult the files which have been presented to the trial court or which would be presented to the trial court in case of an indictment , and to inspect the exhibits . LAW of this provision allows for a refusal of access to part or all of the files or to the exhibits for as long as the preliminary investigation has not been terminated , if the purpose of the investigation would otherwise be endangered . Pending the termination of the preliminary investigation , it is for the public prosecutor 's office to decide whether to grant access to the file or not ; thereafter it is for the president of the trial court ( LAW ) . By LAW amending LAW ( Strafverfahrensänderungsgesetz , GPE , DATE , vol . I , p. CARDINAL ) with effect as from DATE , the latter provision has been amended to the effect , inter alia , that an accused who is in detention is now entitled to ask for judicial review of the decision of the public prosecutor 's office denying access to the file .

Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulate the principles of criminal prosecution and the preparation of the indictment . Article CARDINAL provides that any trial has to be initiated by an indictment . According to LAW , the indictment is to be preferred by the public prosecutor 's office which is , unless otherwise provided , bound to investigate any criminal offence for which there exist sufficient grounds of suspicion .

Preliminary investigations are to be conducted by the public prosecutor 's office according to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure . On the basis of these investigations the public prosecutor 's office decides under LAW whether to prefer an indictment or to discontinue the proceedings .

According to LAW ) , every person involved in proceedings before a court is entitled to be heard by that court ( PERSON auf rechtliches PERSON ) .

According to ORG ( ORG - gericht ) , this rule requires a court decision to be based only on those facts and evidential findings which could be commented upon by the parties . In cases involving arrest and detention on remand , the arrest warrant and all court decisions upholding it must be founded only on those facts and pieces of evidence of which the accused was previously aware and on which he was able to comment ( ORG , decision of DATE ( FAC juristische GPE , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) , with further references ) .

In the aforementioned decision , ORG held that , following his arrest , an accused had to be informed of the content of the arrest warrant and promptly brought before a judge who , when questioning him , had to inform him of all relevant incriminating evidence as well as of evidence in his favour . Moreover , in the course of ensuing review proceedings , the accused must be heard and , to the extent that the investigation will not be prejudiced , the relevant results of the investigation at that stage must be given to him . In some cases , such oral information may not be sufficient . If the facts and the evidence forming the basis of a decision in detention matters can not or can no longer be communicated orally , other means of informing the accused , such as a right to consult the files ( PERSON ) , are to be used . On the other hand , statutory limitations on an accused 's access to the files until the preliminary investigation is completed are to be accepted if the efficient conduct of criminal investigations so requires . However , even while those investigations are in progress , an accused who is detained on remand has a right of access to the files through his lawyer if and to the extent that the information which they contain might affect his position in the review proceedings and oral information is not sufficient . If in such cases the prosecution refuses access to the relevant parts of the files pursuant to LAW , the reviewing court can not base its decision on those facts and evidence and , if necessary , has to set the arrest warrant aside ( ORG , op . cit . ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant deposited his money with ORG ( ORG ) . Subsequently , ORG unilaterally reduced the interest rate on his deposit . The applicant sued ORG for the damages incurred through the unilateral modification of the interest rate .

On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant 's claim as unsubstantiated . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the judgments of DATE and CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the claim for fresh consideration . The ORG 's decision was set aside by ORG of GPE on DATE . However , on DATE ORG Presidium re - examined the supervisory - review application , quashed the earlier judgments and ordered a new examination of the applicant 's claim .

On DATE the ORG granted a small portion of the applicant 's claims to the amount of MONEY and rejected the remainder . On DATE ORG adopted a supplementary judgment , by which it declared the deposit agreement , in relation to the right of ORG to change unilaterally the interest rate , invalid . On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant .

The applicant lodged a claim against ORG , seeking compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages incurred through the inappropriate administration of justice , and notably the excessive length of proceedings in respect of his claim against ORG .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant 's claim . Referring to ORG Ruling of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG noted that ORG had not yet adopted a law determining jurisdiction over claims concerning ORG liability for the damage caused by a court 's or judge 's failure to adjudicate a case within a reasonable time , and dismissed the claim in the following terms :

“ According to LAW , the rules of civil procedure in federal courts of general jurisdiction are determined by LAW , LAW , LAW and other federal laws .

The law has not determined the territorial and subject - matter jurisdiction over civil claims for compensation of damages incurred in civil proceedings in cases where a dispute has not been heard on the merits as a consequence of unlawful acts ( or failures to act ) of a court ( a judge ) , including the breach of a reasonable - time guarantee .

The court must dismiss the statement of claim if there are grounds listed in LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , that is if the claim may not be examined in civil proceedings and if the court is not competent to examine the claim . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the decision to dismiss the applicant 's claim , finding as follows :

“ In dismissing the claim , the judge correctly stated that the law had not determined the territorial and subject - matter jurisdiction over civil claims for compensation of damages incurred in civil proceedings in cases where a dispute had not been heard on the merits as a consequence of unlawful acts ( or failures to act ) of a court ( a judge ) , including the breach of a reasonable - time guarantee .

Under these circumstances , the [ ORG ] finds no grounds for quashing that decision . Since the judge reached the conclusion that the claim may not be examined in civil proceedings , the reference to LAW must be deleted [ as being superfluous ] ” .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG of GPE , respectively , refused the applicant 's requests for the institution of supervisory - review proceedings .

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code contains general provisions on liability for the infliction of damage . It establishes that damage inflicted on the person or property of an individual shall be reimbursed in full by the person who inflicted the damage ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code determines liability for the damage caused by unlawful actions of law - enforcement authorities or courts . In particular , it is established that the federal or regional treasury shall be liable for the damage sustained by an individual in the framework of the administration of justice provided that the judge 's guilt has been established in a final criminal conviction ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

By Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG found that Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW was compatible with LAW in so far as it provided for special conditions on State liability for the damage caused in the framework of administration of justice . It clarified , nevertheless , that the term “ administration of justice ” did not cover the judicial proceedings in their entirety , but only extended to judicial acts touching upon the merits of a case . Other judicial acts – mainly of a procedural nature DATE fell outside the scope of the notion “ administration of justice ” . State liability for the damage caused by such procedural acts or failures to act , such as a breach of the reasonable length of court proceedings , could arise even in the absence of a final criminal conviction of a judge if the fault of the judge has been established in civil proceedings . ORG emphasised , moreover , that the constitutional right to compensation by the ORG for the damage should not be tied in with the personal fault of a judge . An individual should be able to obtain compensation for any damage incurred through a violation by a court of his or her right to a fair trial within the meaning of LAW . ORG held that ORG should legislate on the grounds and procedure for compensation by the ORG for the damage caused by unlawful acts or failures to act of a court or a judge and determine territorial and subject - matter jurisdiction over such claims .

The RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure ( in force at the material time ) established that a civil claim should be dismissed , by a single judge , in particular , if it was not amenable to examination in civil proceedings ( Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) or if the court was not competent to examine it ( Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .


Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies)

Mr PERSON , a NORP national of the NORP faith , was born in DATE and lived in PERSON ( Western Thrace ) . He was a doctor , publisher of the DATE newspaper ORG " ) and a member of ORG . He died on DATE in a road accident near PERSON .

ORG The applicant was the sole candidate of the political party Güven - representing part of the NORP population of LOC - to win a seat in the parliamentary election of DATE . As no government emerged from that election , a fresh poll was planned for DATE in which the applicant intended to stand as a candidate .

ORG On various dates between DATE and CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON published in the newspaper Güven and circulated in the region a number of communiqués , including the following :

" TO THE ORG ELECTORATE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF RODOPI

In response to the repeated requests of the Turco - Muslim electorate of the department of GPE , we , journalist GPE ismail ( of GPE ) , PERSON and theologian PERSON , have decided to stand in the general election of DATE as members of the independent NORP list . The NORP community of LOC , especially since DATE , has been through some unhappy experiences at the hands of political parties . At the elections of DATE , in an upsurge of unity , it placed its trust in the independent NORP list . It asserted its identity and took its destiny into its own hands by electing a member of that list to represent it in ORG . For the elections of DATE it is equally determined to send to ORG a representative who enjoys its trust .

After the historic victory won on DATE the NORP electors of the department of GPE never again wish to return to the old parties and live once more DATE when they were despondent and crushed .

Moreover , we suffer when we observe the manoeuvres of the other parties , who , in order to win the precious ORG vote in LOC , are playing on the fears of the people in our towns and villages . Some who seem to be of our own kind still dare , under the pretext of defending the rights of the NORP community in LOC , to call for the votes of our honest , fair - minded fellow citizens . It is painful to see that these adventurers can still walk abroad among us . The only thing the members of the NORP - Muslim community of LOC want is to live in dignity in the country where they were born and have grown up . No force will halt their just and legitimate struggle .

We place all our trust in God first of all , but also in the honest and conscientious ORG electorate , who believe in our cause . The NORP electorate of the department of GPE , whose motto is ' CARDINAL for all and all for one ' will express their trust in GPE on DATE and overcome all their adversaries with honour and respect . ... "

The applicant was convicted of an offence on the basis of the above article , a NORP translation of which was read out at his trial in ORG and in ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL below ) .

In another communiqué he wrote :

" YOUNG PEOPLE ! SHOULDER YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES

ON DATE ORG HAVE BEEN SUFFERING SINCE THE DAY OF THEIR BIRTH IN WESTERN THRACE WILL AT DATE BE ABLE TO SAY ' NO ' TO THE POLITICAL PARTIES WHO ARE MAKING THEM LIVE AN INHUMAN LIFE

YOUNG PEOPLE ! ORG IS STRENGTH ! STICK TOGETHER ! YOUR VOTE IS AS PRECIOUS AS YOUR HONOUR , BE CAREFUL HOW YOU CAST IT !

THE YOUNG NORP OF WESTERN THRACE , WHOSE SLOGAN IS ' WE WANT RIGHTS , NOT CHARITY ' ARE GOING TO ENFORCE RESPECT FOR THEIR RIGHTS

ORG THRACE

In this community of CARDINAL ORG of LOC the highest duty , one which will fill you with honour and pride , falls to you . The date of the fresh general election , DATE , is approaching .

For DATE you have been affected most by the pressure , discrimination and injustice inflicted on the NORP community of LOC by the leaders who have followed each other at the head of this country .

You have breathed in the fumes of injustice and discrimination since birth .

Your innocent childhood passed by in injustice . You were not able to shout out to the world ' I am a NORP child ' .

In our world , where education and training are so highly developed , your schooling was cut short . You did not even have a schoolbook when ethnic - NORP children were getting a modern education and taking advantage of the cultural and technological developments of their time .

You have the necessary intelligence to become a doctor , a lawyer or an engineer ... but this country which you call ' my homeland ' has shut the door of study in your face . You have grown up and become an adult in the midst of these injustices by the law of nature . Because no one could prevent you growing up . Perhaps you are also now married and a father , but you have no home for your dear wife and the children you love . You have just completed your military service but , in this country that you call ' my homeland ' , the right to buy or build a house is denied you .

As your access to higher education was barred , you learned a trade , although this meant putting up with the constant annoying remarks of your ' NORP boss ' [ Çorbaci ] down through DATE . You became a repairer of engines , exhaust pipes or tyres ... , but you still have to fill the pockets of your NORP boss , because you do not have the right to open your own workshop .

When you were born you received your name during the call to prayer ; your name appears in the district council 's register as PERSON , PERSON ... But in your place of work your boss insists on calling you ' PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ... '

With the enthusiasm of youth you leap on a tractor and work in the fields DATE and TIME . You would like to drive past in front of your friends on this tractor , but you ca n't .

Because you are not even thought worthy of permission to use the tractor . You are almost obliged to work your own land by stealth . After working DATE and saving up a bit of money you would like to go for a trip or to travel abroad . But you 're uneasy about going away . You are tormented by doubts . You wonder if you 'll lose your nationality when you return or have to surrender your passport when you leave .

YOUNG PEOPLE OF WESTERN THRACE !

You young people who came into the world in the midst of all this injustice and for whom a humiliating existence has been mapped out , your DATE has come !

In the elections of DATE , teach all those who would lock you into this injustice an unforgettable lesson .

NOBODY DOUBTS THAT YOU WILL GIVE YOUR FULL SUPPORT TO THE INDEPENDENT LIST and in so doing prove that you would rather die than abandon your national and religious roots !

Here and now you must set up ORG in your district or village and make sure that your parents and grandparents are not deceived !

On DATE of the elections , up till the time when all the votes have been counted , make sure that all the votes are not wasted by remaining either next to the ballot boxes or outside the polling station . Do not forget for a single second that your vote is as precious as your honour !

THE NORP COMMUNITY OF WESTERN THRACE TRUSTS YOU AND IS PROUD OF YOU .

LONG LIVE THE NORP AND NORP YOUTH OF WESTERN THRACE ! "

ORG The applicant was then accused of contravening ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the public prosecutor attached to ORG summoned him to appear in that court on DATE to stand trial on the following charges :

" [ In DATE , in the town of PERSON ,

( CARDINAL ) by false information and defamatory declarations about certain candidates , [ Mr PERSON ] deceived the electors in order to induce them to change the way they intended to vote ; in particular , he wrote and circulated in the town of PERSON and other places in the department of GPE a declaration in the NORP language ... in which he asserted that the NORP electors of the department of GPE were living every day - that is in the period preceding the general election of CARDINAL DATE - in an anarchic climate ( of terror ) fostered by the candidates of the other political parties ... who were going round the different villages of the department of GPE trying to win the votes of the NORP electors ...

( CARDINAL ) at the same time and in the same place he contravened LAW ... ; in particular he wrote and circulated the above - mentioned declaration in which there were frequent repetitions of the words ' PERSON ' , ' NORP ' , ' NORP minority of LOC and ' NORP community ' , used to designate the NORP minority in LOC ; by describing the NORP minority as ' NORP ' and by calling the NORP ' NORP ' rather than ' NORP ' , he provoked and incited the citizens to sow discord among themselves ( particularly on the NORP side ) and between them and the other citizens of PERSON , and thus disturbed the public peace ...

Consequently , he has contravened Articles ... CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . "

A second summons , of DATE , directed the applicant to appear before the same court on DATE to answer the following charge :

" On DATE in the town of PERSON and in other places in the department of GPE he contravened LAW ... In particular , he published in the newspaper Güven of CARDINAL DATE a declaration signed by him ( the accused ) in which he falsely alleged the existence of discrimination against , and oppression of , ORG by the NORP administrative authorities , and of injustices committed to their detriment . Lastly , by describing the NORP minority of LOC as the ' NORP minority ' rather than the ' NORP minority of NORP faith ' , he provoked and incited the citizens , mainly on the NORP side , to reciprocal discord and thus disturbed the public peace of the citizens of LOC .

Consequently , he has contravened Articles ... and CARDINAL of LAW . "

ORG On DATE Mr PERSON and his co - defendant appeared in ORG . While the witnesses were being questioned their lawyers challenged one of the court 's judges on account of the animosity he had shown towards the accused and the way he was asking the questions . After deliberating , the court dismissed the challenge , holding that the questions asked by the judge concerned did not go beyond the scope of the bill of indictment and were intended as an objective means of revealing the truth in the case under consideration . The defence lawyers then withdrew from the case and their clients stated that they did not want any other lawyer to be appointed . They conducted their own defence and denied committing the offence charged . In particular , the applicant said that his intention in the articles in issue had only been to condemn the oppression of the NORP minority by the ORG and to draw attention to the problems which members of that minority encountered in their dealings with the administrative authorities . He pointed out that the term " NORP " had been used for a long time not only in the press but also by the administrative and judicial authorities . Lastly , he asserted that the presence of a crowd which had gathered outside the court was not due to the articles in issue but to the fact that the trial was being held and the fact that the NORP ' ethnic identity was still being denied .

ORG On DATE the court acquitted the applicant and his codefendant of electoral deception , but found them guilty of disturbing the citizens ' peace .

The court found that the accused , as the candidates of an independent party in the elections of CARDINAL DATE , had jointly written in the NORP language a declaration which they had circulated in the town of PERSON and other places in GPE and in which the terms " NORP " , " NORP " , " ORG minority of LOC " and " NORP community " repeatedly appeared . By describing NORP of PERSON and the department of GPE as NORP rather than NORP , they had intended , by appealing to the feelings , minds and will of the NORP citizens of the NORP minority , to instil and implant in their hearts the seeds of discord , hatred and hostility towards NORP of PERSON and the department of GPE , to provoke and incite the citizens of the CARDINAL communities to commit acts of violence and to sow discord between themselves and thus disturb , as they had moreover succeeded in doing , the public peace and the peaceful and harmonious coexistence that had obtained for DATE between the citizens of the CARDINAL NORP communities ( the NORP and the NORP ) .

The court sentenced Mr PERSON effect as it was probable that he would evade justice by absconding to GPE . Enforcement of the sentence until such time as the appeal court had given judgment would not cause either the applicant or his family excessive and irreparable prejudice .

ORG The applicant remained in detention from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . His candidacy in the elections of DATE was annulled for technical reasons .

ORG On DATE violence broke out in PERSON , in the course of which many shops were damaged . A NORP killed a NORP in a hospital in the town .

ORG For the NORP minority of LOC the date was significant as the anniversary of events which had taken place DATE , in DATE . In DATE ORG had forbidden the minority 's youth and primary school teacher associations to describe themselves as " NORP " . ORG judgment brought to a close a series of actions brought in DATE by the prefects of GPE and Xanthi in order to obtain the dissolution of ORG , the " NORP Primary Teachers ' Union of Western Thrace " and ORG " . Accordingly , in DATE , the NORP minority of LOC decided to organise a demonstration in front of the prefecture to express their disapproval of the above judgment . Although the demonstration had been banned by the police , it did in the end take place , but matters got out of hand and violent clashes took place in the town of PERSON .

ORG On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of ORG . The case was referred to ORG for reasons having to do with the maintenance of order and public safety ( Articles CARDINAL ( c ) and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( c ) of LAW ) .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment , giving the following reasons :

" The following facts have been established by the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defence examined under oath during the trial before this ORG and by the documents read out and the arguments put forward by the accused in his defence . As candidates on an independent list in the general election of CARDINAL DATE in PERSON , the accused wrote , CARDINAL DATE , a pamphlet printed in GPE which they distributed in the town of PERSON and other places in the department of GPE and in which the terms ' NORP ' , ' NORP ' , ' NORP minority of LOC and ' NORP community ' repeatedly appeared . In this manner the accused deliberately set out to describe as ' NORP " the NORP citizens of NORP faith , although they knew that under LAW only a NORP minority , not a NORP minority , has been recognised in the region of LOC . Nevertheless , by the above - mentioned act , which was an appeal to the feelings , minds and will of the NORP citizens of the NORP minority , the accused deliberately sought to instil and implant in their hearts the seeds of discord , hatred and hostility towards NORP who lived in the same region . In this manner they succeeded in provoking and inciting the citizens to mutual discord , a further consequence of which was disturbance of the public peace . All the foregoing has been corroborated by the prosecution witnesses PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who , living in PERSON , had direct knowledge of these facts . They stated that , because of the distribution of the pamphlet in question , the public peace among the citizens of the town of PERSON was seriously disturbed , so that in a short space of time acts of violence were committed between NORP and NORP . The accused 's assertion that what they sought to achieve through the pamphlet in question was only to win the support of the electors of the NORP population is not convincing because , if that had been the case , they could have achieved their aim by any other suitable method without referring to NORP in the pamphlet in question as ' NORP ' , even though they knew that a NORP minority is not recognised in LOC and that if they attempted to raise such an issue in such a sensitive region , the peace between NORP and NORP would certainly be disturbed , which was indeed what actually happened . Consequently , the accused are declared guilty of the above - mentioned offence , as described analytically in the operative provisions of this judgment . Nevertheless , the ORG will take into consideration the extenuating circumstance that before committing the offence the accused had always led blameless private , family , professional and social lives . "

Lastly , ORG reduced Mr PERSON prison sentence to DATE and commuted it to a fine of MONEY ( GRD ) per day .

ORG On DATE , after his release , the applicant was re - elected to ORG . ORG

ORG On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law . He maintained that the charges against him were vague and that the courts below should have dismissed the prosecution case . He also alleged that ORG had not given sufficient reasons for its decision , as NORP legislation required . In particular , he argued that ORG had not made it clear why the use of the noun " NORP " or the adjective " NORP " was per se likely to create a climate of hatred or disturb public order . Lastly , he complained that the judgment gave no specific example of events which had actually occurred towards the end of DATE and which could be said to have disturbed public peace .

ORG On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on the following grounds :

" ... LAW , which was adopted for the protection of public order and to enable a ORG based on the rule of law to deal with the kind of tension which the democratic legal order ... can not tolerate , establishes , as do Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL , the serious offence of ' disturbing the citizens ' peace ' . The objective element of this offence - according to the LAW mentioned - consists in provoking or inciting the citizens , publicly and in any manner whatsoever ( whether orally or in writing ) , to commit acts of violence or to sow discord among themselves , or aversion and hate , thus disturbing the public peace , that is to say society 's confidence in peaceful order .

The subjective element of the offence is the offender 's mens rea , which means that he must have acted knowingly and with the intent to provoke or incite the citizens to commit acts of violence or to sow discord among themselves , thus disturbing the public peace .

In the instant case ... ORG ... found ... that the appellants , who were independent candidates in PERSON in the general election of CARDINAL DATE , had jointly written towards DATE a declaration in the NORP language , which they circulated in the town of PERSON and other places in the department of GPE and in which the terms ' PERSON ' , ' NORP ' , ' ORG minority of LOC and ' NORP community ' repeatedly appeared . In this manner the appellants had deliberately attempted to describe as ' NORP ' NORP of NORP Rodopi , although they knew that LAW recognised only the existence in that region of a NORP ( religious ) minority , not a NORP minority . Nevertheless , the appellants , in appealing to the feelings , minds and will of the NORP citizens of the NORP minority , had deliberately set out to instil and implant in their hearts the seeds of discord , hate and hostility towards NORP who live in the same region . They had thus succeeded in provoking and sowing discord among the citizens , which disturbed the peace of the citizens of PERSON to such an extent that , in a short space of time , acts of violence were committed between NORP and NORP in that town . Moreover , they knew that there was no NORP minority in LOC and that their conduct would disturb the public peace between NORP and NORP .

By its reasoning ORG can be seen to have set out in the impugned judgment the specific , detailed grounds required by Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the LAW and LAW , since it gave a full and clear account therein , without contradicting itself , of the facts of the case as established at the trial , which constitute the objective and subjective elements of the above - mentioned offence ...

More particularly , there is no contradiction between the reasons and the operative provisions ... , since provoking and sowing discord , thus disturbing the public peace , are sufficient to make out the objective element of the offence for which they were sentenced . Mentioning in the reasons that acts of violence had been committed , while not necessary to support the operative provisions , was not however in contradiction with those provisions , regard being had to the fact that discord is the psychological condition for an act of violence , which is the higher level of discord ...

Lastly , the appellants ' mens rea is inherent in the commission of the acts that constitute the offence , which show that they acted deliberately , knowing that they were disturbing the public peace ... "

ORG The following provisions of LAW are relevant :

" Every person may express and propagate his thoughts orally , in writing and through the press in compliance with the laws of the ORG . "

" The generally acknowledged rules of international law , as well as international Conventions as of the time they are sanctioned by law and become operative according to the terms therein , shall be an integral part of domestic NORP law and shall prevail over any contrary provision of the law . The rules of international law and of international Conventions shall be applicable to aliens only under the condition of reciprocity . "

ORG The relevant provisions of LAW are worded as follows :

It shall be an offence , punishable by DATE imprisonment and a fine , to deceive an elector through false information or defamatory declarations about an electoral candidate , or by any other means , either in order to prevent him from exercing his right to vote or in order to influence his voting intentions ... "

It shall be an offence , punishable by DATE imprisonment , to participate in a gathering of persons ... committing acts of violence against people or property or forcibly entering houses belonging to others , dwellings or other buildings .

Incitement to commit the offence or the commission of acts of violence shall be punished by not DATE imprisonment .

These penalties shall be imposed if the conduct concerned is not punished more severely pursuant to another provision . " " Disturbing the citizens ' peace

It shall be an offence , punishable by DATE imprisonment , to provoke anxiety or terror among the citizens by threatening the commission of criminal offences .

It shall be an offence , punishable by not DATE imprisonment and a fine , to spread by any means false information or rumours calculated to provoke anxiety or fear among the citizens or to undermine confidence in the ORG ... or to perturb the country 's international relations . If the offence is repeated by way of the press , the offender shall be punished by not DATE imprisonment and a fine of not less than two hundred thousand drachmas .

It shall be an offence , punishable by DATE imprisonment , save where another provision lays down a harsher penalty , to provoke or incite the citizens , publicly and in any manner whatsoever , to commit acts of violence or sow discord among themselves , thus disturbing the public peace . "


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 13+6 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

On TIME DATE QUANTITY persons , who worked as bodyguards for the applicant ’s former father - in - law , were murdered . A preliminary investigation was opened on an unspecified date .

The applicant ’s former father - in - law was detained and questioned on an unspecified date . He confessed to the CARDINAL homicides and implicated the applicant as an accomplice .

NORP The applicant was detained and questioned on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . He confessed to having assisted his former father - in - law in planning , committing and concealing the CARDINAL murders . The applicant was then remanded in custody and charged .

Thereafter the authorities conducted a preliminary investigation which involved , inter alia , the questioning of CARDINAL witnesses in different cities , performing a number of crime scene experiments and commissioning the following reports : autopsy , physicalchemical , forensic , ballistic , medico - ballistic , psychiatric , graphological , and accounting . An assessor ’s report was also prepared .

The preliminary investigation ended in DATE .

On DATE an indictment was filed against the applicant and his co - defendant . The applicant was charged with ( a ) premeditated aggravated murder ; ( b ) acquiring and retaining significant amounts of money obtained through fraudulent means ; and ( c ) obtaining and possessing a handgun and ammunition without a permit .

On DATE the charges against the applicant were amended , which led to the initial indictment being withdrawn on an unspecified date and a revised indictment being filed on DATE .

On DATE the ORG remitted the case back to the public prosecutor ’s office . The applicant contended , which the Government did not expressly challenge , that this was because of procedural violations but that no additional investigative procedures had been conducted as a result .

A new indictment was filed against the applicant on DATE .

On an unspecified date the ORG relatives joined the proceedings as civil claimants .

It is unclear when and how many hearings were conducted before ORG .

In a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of ( a ) premeditated aggravated murder ; ( b ) acquiring and retaining money obtained through fraudulent means ; and ( c ) obtaining and possessing a handgun and ammunition without a permit . The applicant ’s codefendant was also found guilty of related charges . The court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and awarded damages to the GPE successors .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of ORG . It is unclear on which dates and how many hearings were conducted before ORG .

NORP In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the lower court ’s judgment in its entirety .

On DATE the applicant filed a cassation appeal . In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , but reduced the imposed sentence to life imprisonment .


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

A.

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

Background

On DATE the applicant was adopted by PERSON Under a contract concluded on DATE the applicant undertook to provide DATE care for PERSON and for her ill sister until the end of their lives and to pay MONEY , in exchange of PERSON undertaking to transfer the ownership of her apartment to the applicant .

The applicant paid MONEY and discharged his care obligations properly until DATE when his relations with PERSON deteriorated . Since DATE the applicant and PERSON have been parties to several civil proceedings such as proceedings for annulment of the adoption , for enforcement and for rescinding of their DATE contract and for payment of compensation . A judgment of CARDINAL DATE established that the DATE contract was to be considered rescinded .

The proceedings DATE

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG ( GPE съд ) against PERSON and CARDINAL other persons seeking , inter alia , restitution of the MONEY paid and of the value of the care and services furnished by him under the DATE contract . His action was based on the rule of prohibition of unjust enrichment ( неоснователно обогатяване ) as enshrined in LAW ( ORG за задълженията и договорите ) .

The court heard numerous witnesses and experts who established the services performed by the applicant and their value . The court held its last hearing on DATE and announced that the judgment would be delivered soon thereafter .

In DATE the applicant twice addressed the court asking for a speedy delivery of the judgment . In DATE and DATE he also sought to amend his claim arguing that the sharp increase in inflation since DATE had led to CARDINAL fold devaluation of the real value of the NORP currency .

The judgment , which was dated DATE , was delivered on DATE .

The court found that the applicant was entitled to restitution of all that he had given under the DATE contract . This right had arisen on DATE , the date on which the judicial decision confirming the rescission of the DATE contract had been delivered . It was further established that the services performed by the applicant and the food , heating fuel and other products provided by him to PERSON and her sister for the period DATE amounted to MONEY ( the MONEY paid by the applicant included ) , according to prices from the relevant period . The court therefore awarded to the applicant this amount , together with the established interest rate ( законна лихва ) , to be counted as from CARDINAL DATE , the date of bringing of the applicant 's action .

The parties appealed to ORG ( Βърховен съд ) which on DATE quashed ORG judgment under LAW ) of LAW ( PERSON процесуален кодекс ) and returned the case for renewed examination as there had been certain procedural irregularities . ORG was composed of CARDINAL justices , PERSON , Mr GPE and PERSON .

The proceedings before ORG

The referred case was taken by ORG as there was not a sufficient number of judges at ORG .

ORG held CARDINAL hearings . At most of the hearings witnesses and experts were heard , evidence was admitted and oral submissions were made .

At the first hearing on DATE the applicant stated the evidence on which he would rely . He later decided to request the appointment of an expert and submitted a motion in writing on DATE . The court granted the request by decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the expert 's report was submitted to the court . The hearing listed for CARDINAL DATE was adjourned as there was no confirmation that one of the defendants had received the summons .

On DATE and DATE the applicant made submissions in writing amending his claim to reflect the inflation and requested the appointment of another expert . On DATE the request was granted .

On DATE the proceedings were suspended due to the death of CARDINAL of the defendants . The applicant was instructed to state whether he wished to pursue the action against the heirs and to provide their names and addresses . He did so on DATE . On DATE the expert appointed by the court filed his report .

The fourth hearing took place on DATE . Both parties requested leave to submit further evidence and to question witnesses . The applicant requested additional reports from the experts . The hearing was adjourned .

On DATE the court held a hearing . CARDINAL of the experts and CARDINAL of the witnesses for the applicant did not appear . The court decided to hold another hearing .

On DATE the applicant requested in writing that additional questions be put to the experts . Their answers were filed with the court on DATE .

On DATE the court held a hearing . An expert did not appear . The case was listed for a further hearing .

By written motion of DATE the applicant increased the amount of the claim in view of the inflation and requested leave to question CARDINAL additional witnesses .

The next hearing was on DATE . The applicant sought leave to put additional questions to CARDINAL of the experts and requested an adjournment as CARDINAL of his witnesses had not been able to attend .

On DATE the applicant requested in writing leave to have another witness examined . On DATE an additional expert 's report was filed .

The hearing on DATE was adjourned upon the request of the applicant who insisted on the questioning of a witness who had not appeared . On DATE and DATE the court rejected the applicant 's request for additional questions to CARDINAL of the experts .

On DATE the applicant requested in writing leave to have re - examined a witness who had already been questioned .

At the hearing on DATE , the ninth hearing in the case , CARDINAL of the witnesses was unable to attend . An expert 's opinion which was due had not been filed . The court listed the case for a further hearing .

On DATE the applicant made submissions in writing requesting further reports from the experts . This request was rejected .

The failure of a witness and of an expert to appear at the tenth hearing , which was held on DATE , prevented the conclusion of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant requested in writing leave to have CARDINAL additional witnesses summoned and examined . The request was granted .

In the course of the eleventh hearing , on DATE , the applicant sought to increase the amount of the claim in view of the inflation . The case was adjourned as one of the defendants had not appeared and the relevant law required that all defendants be provided with an opportunity to comment on any amendment of the claim .

On DATE the applicant successfully requested the court to order an additional expert 's opinion . This was filed on DATE .

The hearing on DATE could not conclude the proceedings for the same reasons as those , which caused the adjournment of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the further questioning of CARDINAL witnesses . This was granted .

The last hearing before ORG took place on DATE . Following all amendments of the amount of the claim , it was finally set by the applicant at MONEY as he insisted that the price levels of DATE should be used .

On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . It found that the applicant 's right to restitution of what he had given under the DATE contract had arisen on DATE . The court awarded to the applicant MONEY , together with the established interest rate , to be counted as from DATE , the date of the submission of the applicant 's action .

Addressing the applicant 's argument that the inflation should be taken into account the court found , inter alia :

" ... upon the rescission of a contract the parties are under the obligation to return whatever they have exchanged in order to restore the situation as it was prior to the execution of the contract . Therefore , the ORG finds that the claim is well - founded for its part up to MONEY ... and should be dismissed as ill - founded in its remaining part . "

Appeal and review ( cassation ) proceedings

The applicant and the defendants appealed to ORG . On DATE the applicant requested in writing a speedy examination of the case .

The appeal was examined by a chamber of the ORG , which was composed of CARDINAL justices , CARDINAL of whom , PERSON and Mr GPE , had also participated in the examination of the case in DATE . The applicant did not request their removal . ORG heard the appeals on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals . According to LAW of MONEY plus interest became enforceable on DATE .

ORG found inter alia :

" The [ Regional ] Court correctly awarded restitution of the benefits on the basis of their value as of the moment of their bestowal , as this is the amount with which the [ applicant ] has actually become poorer . If the pecuniary equivalent of the furnished services were to be awarded under up - to - date prices , the [ applicant ] would have received more than that of which he was actually deprived . [ In cases ] of unjust enrichment the benefits bestowed are to be restituted up to the amount of the deprivation suffered . "

In DATE the applicant and the defendants submitted to a CARDINAL - member chamber of ORG petitions for review ( cassation ) ( преглед по реда на надзора ) against the judgments of DATE and DATE .

A hearing was listed for DATE . It was adjourned until DATE upon the applicant 's request in view of the unavailability of his legal representative .

The hearing on DATE was adjourned as the defendants had not been properly summoned .

The hearing eventually took place on DATE .

On DATE ORG , sitting in a CARDINAL - member chamber , dismissed the applicant 's petition for review

The ORG confirmed that according to the relevant law the applicant could not claim re - evaluation according to up - to - date prices .

Also , dealing with the applicant 's complaint that the same justices decided twice in his case , the court stated inter alia :

" ... the examination of the [ second appeal ] by the same chamber which had previously quashed the lower court 's judgment and had returned the case to it under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW not only is not a breach of procedure , but is desirable in view of the [ chamber 's ] cognizance of the matter and the [ need for ] economy ... The grounds under LAW § CARDINAL for returning a case to the first instance court are such that the [ appellate ] court does not decide on the merits . "

On DATE the defendants paid to the applicant the amount of MONEY , which represented the principal sum due plus interest .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

Section CARDINAL

" Anyone who has received something without a causa or pursuant to a causa which has not realised or has ceased to exist , shall be under the obligation to return it ... "

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL :

" If the object to be restituted has been ... consumed by the beneficiary when he already knew that he possessed it without causa , the latter owes its real value ... However , if the object [ to be restituted ] has been ... consumed by the beneficiary before the invitation [ to return it ] the latter owes only that of which he has benefited ... "

According to the practice of ORG ( реш. GPE от QUANTITY на GPE на GPE по гр.д. No . CARDINAL ) :

" The consequence of the rescission of a bilateral contract is that the parties shall return whatever they have exchanged in order to restore the situation as it was prior to the execution of the contract . The restitution is due because the contract which had been the legal ground of the exchange has ceased to exist . The restitution ... is due under LAW of LAW ... "

The statutory default interest rate applicable to judicial awards is established by acts of ORG ( PERSON съвет ) . It was PERCENT per annum DATE and was , thereafter and during the relevant period of time , equal to the basic interest rate , as established by ORG , increased by CARDINAL points . At different periods of time DATE and DATE , when the judgment awarding MONEY to the applicant became enforceable , the interest rate thus varied DATE .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL(b ) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the appellate court has to refer the case back for renewed examination by the lower court where the latter 's judgment has been quashed because of a violation of the party 's right to fully participate in the proceedings .


The applicant is a citizen of GPE of GPE ethnic origin , born in DATE . He currently resides in GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer working for ORG .

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

The applicant ’s father was killed by the NORP Peace Keeping Forces ( IPKF ) in DATE . His elder brother , who was with ORG ) , has disappeared since DATE . The applicant ’s sister arrived in GPE in DATE and claimed asylum . On DATE the Special Adjudicator concluded that she had a well - founded fear of persecution and allowed her appeal . Reference was made in this decision to the applicant ’s own activity .

The applicant states that he was a member of ORG ( NORP ) from DATE . In DATE he expressed the wish to withdraw from the group , but its leaders prevented him from doing so and he was forced to stay . In DATE he tried to escape from the group ’s camp in ORG , but he was arrested and held at the camp as a prisoner . In DATE he managed to escape and fled to GPE . There he was arrested by the police because he had no identity card . While in detention his co - detainees recognised him as being a member of the NORP . Following that , he claims that he was tortured by police officers . He was detained for DATE ( from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE ) . Then he managed to escape with the help of his uncle who bribed some police officers . He was told he had to leave the country immediately because his life was in danger .

The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE and was arrested when trying to escape to GPE holding a false passport . On DATE , administrative decision ORG ordered the applicant ’s expulsion from GPE and his detention pending expulsion .

On DATE the applicant sought asylum . He identified himself under a false name because he feared for his safety if he had to return to GPE .

On DATE the Minister of Public Order rejected the applicant ’s request . On DATE the applicant appealed against this refusal . During the hearing before the competent administrative committee the applicant was assisted by an interpreter of NORP ethnic origin .

On DATE the Minister of Public Order concluded that the applicant had not established a well - founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention and refused his application . This decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE ordering his expulsion . During the hearing before the competent administrative committee the applicant was assisted by an interpreter of NORP ethnic origin . His appeal was rejected on DATE . The applicant claims that he was informed of this decision orally on DATE .

In the meantime the applicant was informed about his sister ’s whereabouts . When he learned that his sister ’s request for asylum in GPE had been upheld , he made a new application for asylum on DATE .

His request was rejected on DATE . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE he lodged an appeal against this decision with ORG . He also applied for a suspensive effect of his appeal .

On DATE ORG ordered the temporary stay of execution of the administrative acts relating to the applicant ’s expulsion .

On DATE this decision was served on the applicant , who was then released and given a certificate stating that he remains in the country under tolerance .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL provides that the Minister of Public Order may , in the public interest and if the person to be expelled is dangerous or there is a risk of him absconding , order his detention until his deportation from GPE becomes feasible .

The application for annulment is the main remedy before ORG . This remedy is modelled on the NORP recours pour excès de pouvoir , and may be used to challenge both administrative action and inaction . The application for annulment may assert lack of competence , infringement of an essential procedural requirement , substantive violation of the law or abuse of discretionary power . A judgment for the petitioner declares the contested decision to be null and void erga omnes . The authorities are obliged to take the measures called for by the judgment , or to refrain from any action declared to be unlawful .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

NORP In DATE the applicant hired CARDINAL individuals to construct a well for him . Since they had not completed the work in due time , in DATE he brought an action with a view to obliging them to complete the job . In the alternative , he claimed damages .

NORP In response to the applicant ’s motion for bias , ORG appointed the ORG to hear the case . After having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert , on DATE this court dismissed the applicant ’s action .

NORP In pursuit of the applicant ’s repeated motion for bias , ORG appointed the Hajdú - Bihar County Regional Court to deal with his appeal . On DATE that court quashed ORG decision and remitted the case .

On DATE ORG appointed ORG to hear the case in the resumed proceedings . After having held several hearings and obtained the supplementary opinion of an expert , on CARDINAL OctoberCARDINAL that court dismissed the applicant ’s action .

On DATE ORG quashed this decision and , again , remitted the case .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG held several hearings and obtained the opinion of another expert . It heard several witnesses and the expert . On DATE it dismissed the applicant ’s action .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to seek a review , in accordance with section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , given that the amount of the claim fell below the threshold requirements for leave to be considered .