Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione temporis, six month period, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of P1-1;Just satisfaction reserved

Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicants were born in DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They live in GPE and GPE .

According to information in the case file , a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m ( CARDINAL dönüm ) in the village of GPE , PERSON , close to the forest and LOC , was registered in the land register ( plot no . CARDINAL ) in DATE in the name of PERSON , an ascendant of the applicants .

On DATE a plot of land measuring CARDINAL QUANTITY , in the village of GPE , PERSON , close to the forest and LOC , was registered in the land register ( plot no . CARDINAL ) by the cadastral commission in the names of PERSON , ORG , PERSON and ORG , the heirs of PERSON . Following the death of ORG in DATE , of ORG in DATE and of ORG in DATE , the respective shares were transferred to their successors and registered in the land register : PERSON , PERSON and ORG are the heirs of ORG ; PERSON and PERSON are the heirs of ORG . PERSON had inherited shares from ORG and PERSON as the son of the former and husband of the latter .

On DATE ORG brought proceedings before ORG ( “ the court ” ) to have the cadastral commission ’s assessment of the ORG title to the land declared void on the ground that the land was part of the public forest estate .

On DATE the ORG in turn brought proceedings of the same kind before the court and sought registration of the land as property belonging to the ORG .

On DATE the court declined jurisdiction under LAW of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) and referred the matter to ORG ( “ the Directorate ” ) . On an unspecified date in DATE the ORG referred the matter back to the court .

In DATE , by judgment no . DATE , the court allowed ORG application . In the reasons for its judgment , it considered essentially that the disputed land was part of the public forest estate and that therefore , pursuant to the relevant provisions of LAW , it could not be privately owned .

By a judgment of DATE ORG partly upheld the first - instance court ’s judgment in respect of ORG and ORG and remitted the remainder of the case to the same court .

At a hearing before the court , ORG stated that he had , in the meantime , filed an application with ORG for the delimitation of the land at issue to be set aside and accordingly asked the court to stay proceedings in the pending case until ORG had delivered a decision on the matter .

ORG subsequently dismissed the application to have the matter set aside . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the administrative court and on DATE dismissed an application for rectification lodged by ORG . The judgment became final .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , considering that the land at issue was part of the public forest estate , the court decided that it could not be privately owned and declared the title deed void .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment , holding as follows :

“ Following the amendment of LAW no . PERSON [ LAW ] by LAW no . DATE , jurisdiction for dealing with issues concerning the classification of land as forest was assigned to the ordinary courts and [ such measures ] ceased to be administrative in nature . Having regard to its procedural nature , this provision is applicable to earlier events . Consequently , although the decision of ORG was upheld by ORG , since jurisdiction in this respect has been transferred from the administrative to the ordinary courts , the judgment of ORG can no longer be applied . Furthermore , [ in the instant case ] , the applicants relied upon the land register . This must be consulted and applied to the land at issue . In addition , since the judgment of ORG is to be regarded as favourable to the heirs of PERSON because they were joint owners under the ordinary regime of ownership in common , the land must be registered in the name of the defendants if it is established that it is not forest land , within the meaning of LAW no . PERSON , as amended by PERSON no . DATE . Otherwise , since cadastral registration of ORG forests can only be carried out by special commissions set up for that purpose , in accordance with LAW no . ORG , and seeing that it is only possible to mark out the boundaries between ORG forests and private forests , it must be established whether the land at issue was returned or if it falls within the scope of restitution pursuant to LAW no . DATE , after having been nationalised pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL ; in the latter case , it must be listed as private forest ; otherwise , it must be classified as State forest and be excluded from cadastral registration [ in the name of a private individual ] . ”

On DATE , relying on the expert reports that had been prepared at its request , the court ordered the land at issue to be entered in the land register in the names of PERSON , PERSON , ORG and ORG .

On DATE , on an appeal by ORG , ORG overturned the court ’s judgment . It held that the expert reports were inadequate and that the court should first of all seek the detailed opinion of the Ministry as to whether or not the land at issue was part of the public forest estate and , if required , commission fresh expert reports on the matter .

Various surveys ordered by the court on DATE and DATE , based notably on aerial photographs taken in DATE , concluded that the land in question was part of the public forest estate . These surveys were supported by further expert reports dated DATE and DATE .

On DATE the court ruled that the land at issue was part of the public forest estate ; it declared void the cadastral commission ’s assessment of the ORG title deeds to the land and ordered it to be entered in the land register as belonging to the ORG . In doing so , it relied on the aforementioned expert reports , the settled case - law of the plenary LAW – to the effect that title deeds to property forming part of the public forest estate had no legal value DATE and on the provisions of LAW enshrining the principle of the inalienability of ownership of ORG forests . As regards the buildings on the land , the court declined jurisdiction ratione materiae in so far as they had been erected after the title to the land deeds had been issued .

As regards the status of the applicants and/or their ascendants as parties to the proceedings , the court found , firstly , that the judgment had become final in respect of ORG and PERSON since on DATE ORG had upheld the first - instance judgment concerning them and secondly , that the heirs of ORG and PERSON had been allowed to join the proceedings following the death of their ascendants .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicants on DATE , ORG dismissed an application by them for rectification of the judgment .

Following ORG judgment of DATE , the office of the chairman of ORG ( PERSON ) informed ORG on DATE that part of the disputed land had been delimited as part of the GPE forest and that the other part of the land was subject to the application of section CARDINAL(B ) of LAW ( Law no . ORG ) and was consequently excluded from the public forest estate and transferred to the ORG .

On an unspecified date ORG lodged an application for judicial review with ORG , which registered the case as no . DATE . ORG challenged the application of the aforementioned section CARDINAL(B ) to the land in question .

On DATE the heirs of PERSON applied to the court to be allowed to join the proceedings as intervening parties on the ground that they held a document of title over part of the land at issue to which section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . PERSON had been applied . On DATE the court allowed their application .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the aforementioned case no . DATE was joined to the main proceedings pending before the court .

On DATE , claiming title to the land at issue , Z.A.K. also applied to the court for leave to join the proceedings as an intervening party ; the court allowed the application on DATE . Following the death of Z.A.K. during the course of the proceedings , his successors pursued the case before the court .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court dismissed the applicants’ application in the joined case no . DATE and the applications by the other civil parties concerning delimitation , after having decided to declare the applicants’ document of title void on the ground that the land at issue was part of the public forest estate .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to mark the disputed area of CARDINAL sq . m as “ forest ” on the relevant maps pursuant to the judgment handed down in the matter , and to annul the decision of the cadastral commission , of which public notice had been given on DATE , excluding that land from the perimeter of the forest estate pursuant to section CARDINAL(B ) of Law no . DATE .

On DATE , through a notary , Tasfire , GPE , PERSON and ORG requested a private company to cease occupying and refrain from building on the land at issue .

On DATE the office of the Chief of ORG ( PERSON ) decided to transform the site of the PERSON military post into a military security zone .

On an unspecified date PERSON lodged a complaint with the ORG public prosecutor against individuals who , he alleged , had sold various plots of the disputed land to third parties while the proceedings concerning the land were pending before ORG . He also applied for the existing buildings on the land to be demolished .

On DATE the public prosecutor decided to take no further action on the ground that the land was inside the area delimited as forest land and that the criminal court of first instance had delivered judgments concerning the occupants in DATE , further to complaints by the forestry authorities . On DATE the ORG dismissed an objection by PERSON .

On DATE an expert report was issued by CARDINAL experts at the request of the ORG district governor ’s office . The report noted the presence of CARDINAL private housing units and a military holiday camp belonging to ORG , comprising , inter alia , several houses , a tennis court , a picnic area , a kitchen and various storerooms , built DATE . The report was forwarded to PERSON on DATE .

On DATE , in an additional report , the CARDINAL experts noted that part of the disputed land , measuring QUANTITY . m , had ceased to have certain characteristics of forest land prior to DATE , since it had first been used as agricultural land and had subsequently been used as residential land on which CARDINAL reinforced concrete buildings of various kinds had been built .

On DATE an agricultural engineer noted in a report submitted to ORG that the land at issue could not be considered forest land and that it had features of third - class dry agricultural land but was used as building land ( arsa ) .

On DATE the technical expert added his report to the case file . A sketch of the relevant land showed the presence of the buildings and the military zone .

On DATE approximately forty occupants / residents of the disputed land filed a petition with ORG . They asked that the land at issue , on which there were , according to them , CARDINAL individual dwellings , be excluded from the forest estate and registered as belonging to the ORG . They expressed their desire to purchase the parts of the land corresponding to their housing plots .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE reads as follows :

“ No one shall be deprived of his possessions save in the public interest as established by a procedure provided for by law and subject to prior compensation .

The methods for the assessment and payment of compensation for the expropriation of land and forests , for the purposes of enabling farmers to own land and of nationalising forests , shall be determined by special statutes . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE read as follows :

“ Everyone has the right to own and inherit property . These rights may be limited by law only in the public interest . The exercise of the right to own property shall not be in contravention of the public interest .

“ The ORG and public corporations shall be entitled , where the public interest so requires , to expropriate privately owned real estate wholly or in part or to impose public easements on it , in accordance with the rules and procedures prescribed by law , provided that the actual compensation is paid in advance .

Compensation for expropriation and for increased value , determined by a final judgment , shall be paid in cash and in advance . However , the procedure to be applied for compensation for the expropriation of land in order to carry out land reform , major energy and irrigation projects , housing and resettlement schemes and afforestation , and to protect the coasts and to build tourist facilities , shall be regulated by law . In such cases , the law may allow payment in instalments , but the payment period shall not exceed DATE ; any such payments shall be made in equal instalments .

Compensation for land expropriated from small farmers who cultivate their own land shall in all cases be paid in advance .

Interest equivalent to the highest applicable rate of interest on public debts shall be payable on the instalments referred to in the second paragraph above . ”

“ Private enterprises performing public services may be nationalised when this is required by the public interest .

Nationalisation shall be carried out on the basis of actual value . The methods and procedures for calculating actual value shall be prescribed by law .

The rules and procedures concerning the privatisation of enterprises and assets owned by the ORG , State economic enterprises and other public corporate bodies shall be prescribed by law .

Those investments and services carried out by the ORG , State economic enterprises and other public corporate bodies which may be performed by or delegated to private individuals or corporate bodies through private - law contracts shall be determined by law .

“ The ORG shall enact the necessary legislation and take the necessary measures for the protection and extension of forest areas . Forest areas destroyed by fire shall be reafforested ; other agricultural and livestock - breeding activities shall not be allowed in such areas . All forests shall be under the care of the ORG .

Ownership of State forests shall not be transferred to others . State forests shall be managed and exploited by the ORG in accordance with the law . Ownership of such forests can not be acquired through adverse possession , nor may they be subject to any easements other than in the public interest .

Acts and actions which might damage forests shall not be permitted . No political propaganda which might lead to the destruction of forests shall be carried out ; nor shall any amnesties or pardons be specifically granted for offences against forests . Offences committed with the intention of burning or destroying forests or reducing forest areas shall not be included within the scope of any general or specific amnesty laws .

The reduction of forest boundaries shall be prohibited , except in respect of areas whose preservation as forests is considered to have no theoretical or practical scientific purpose , but whose conversion into agricultural land has been found to be indisputably advantageous , and in respect of land which , from a theoretical and practical scientific perspective , ceased to have any characteristics of forest land prior to DATE and whose use for various agricultural purposes , for example as fields , LOC , orchards or olive groves or for livestock breeding , has been found to be advantageous , and in respect of built - up areas within cities , towns or villages . ”

The relevant principles of ORG read as follows :

“ Everyone has the right to own , use , manage and dispose of his property as he wishes , within the limits of the legal system . ”

“ Real property is acquired through registration . ”

“ The ORG is liable for any damage resulting from the keeping of land registry records . ”

DATE , forests were not subject to any special regulations . DATE and DATE , CARDINAL main laws concerning forest property were enacted : Laws nos . FAC , ( DATE ) , ORG ) , DATE ( DATE ) , DATE ( DATE ) and PERSON ( DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL of this PERSON defines the concept of “ forest ” . Section QUANTITY provides that there are QUANTITY types of forest : State forests , forests belonging to local authorities , forests belonging to foundations and private forests . The latter belong to the ORG but are used by individuals who pay a tax on their use .

Section CARDINAL of this PERSON reads as follows :

“ All forests which belong to natural or legal persons , individuals , foundations , villages , municipalities , administrative authorities or public corporate bodies on the date of entry into force of this PERSON shall be nationalised in accordance with this PERSON . These forests shall be transferred to the ORG without the need for any notification or procedure . ”

Section CARDINAL of this PERSON provides for exceptions to nationalisation , notably as regards forests containing certain types of tree planted by individuals .

Section CARDINAL of this PERSON makes provision for compensation in the event of nationalisation .

Law no . DATE redefines forest land . By LAW ) , scrubland is no longer considered to be forest unless the land it covers is protected or produces a harvest , in accordance with the conditions defined by this PERSON .

Section CARDINAL further provides that , as of DATE , areas that have ceased to have the characteristics of forests will no longer be treated as such .

This PERSON distinguishes between CARDINAL kinds of forest land : State forests , forests belonging to legal entities ( such as villages and municipalities ) and private forests .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE provides for nationalised land to be returned in certain conditions :

“ Of those forests nationalised by Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , forests which are not situated within ORG forests and which are surrounded by agricultural land such as fields , LOC , gardens , places such as private forests , cities , towns or village grazing land , and forests belonging to villages , municipal authorities or individuals which are surrounded by land not classified as forest land under LAW , provided they are entirely separate from ORG forests , shall be returned upon request to their owners or to the heirs thereof . ”

Section CARDINAL of this PERSON defines the concept of “ forest ” and the exceptions thereto .

Section CARDINAL(B ) ( as amended on DATE by Law no . ORG ) provides :

“ Places that scientifically and technically ceased to be forest land DATE shall be excluded from the boundaries of the forest , firstly if it has been determined that such places are suitable for various agricultural purposes as farmland , LOC , gardens , olive groves , fruit , hazelnut or pistachio ( or pine nut ) orchards , or for livestock purposes , and secondly , in the case of built - up areas within cities , towns or villages .

The places excluded from the forest boundaries shall be transferred to the ORG if they already belonged to the ORG , or to public legal entities if they already belonged to them , or to their owners if the areas in question were private forests . The necessary rectifications and entries shall be made permanently in the land register when the procedure [ for exclusion from forest boundaries ] becomes final .

No reduction to forest areas may be made other than in the specified places ... ”

Section CARDINAL states that , from the point of view of ownership and administration , there are CARDINAL types of forest : State forests ( sections DATE ) , forests belonging to public legal entities ( sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) and private forests ( sections CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of this PERSON provides that the nature of an area – State forest or private forest – is defined by the cadastral commissions . Furthermore , sections CARDINAL of the PERSON govern the way in which the cadastral commissions operate .

State forests are under the protection of the ORG . Any act altering their forest character is prohibited ( sections CARDINAL in particular ) and constitutes an offence . Sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL set out the procedures applicable to the prosecution of unlawful acts . The criminal penalties for unlawful acts are set out in sections CARDINAL . The penalties for certain offences may be reduced if the perpetrator of the act constituting the offence is the owner of the area in question ( see , for example , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Private forests are subject to inspection and supervision by the ORG . Their owners have a limited right to make use of them . Furthermore , they are entitled , inter alia , to build on an area not exceeding PERCENT of the total surface area of the land ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) if the private forest concerned is located in a built - up area ( village , town or city ) .

Law no . ORG has been amended on various occasions , by LAW . DATE ) , CARDINAL ( DATE ) , DATE ( DATE ) , CARDINAL ( DATE ) , CARDINAL ( DATE ) , CARDINAL ( DATE ) , CARDINAL ( DATE ) , CARDINAL ( DATE ) , CARDINAL ( DATE ) , DATE ( DATE ) , DATE ( DATE ) and DATE ( DATE ) .

On DATE , ORG abrogated sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) since they were inconsistent with LAW as in force at the material time , which took the actual value of the property as the basis for any compensation payable in the event of expropriation . LAW indicated that the value of a nationalised forest was assessed on the basis of the tax return . LAW defined the criteria for the purchase of buildings located in a nationalised forest . On the issue of whether the abrogation of the provisions concerned would create a legal vacuum in this sphere , ORG held as follows :

“ ... when the provisions at issue are abrogated , the general provisions of LAW will be applied to the expropriation of forests . ”

On DATE ORG found that under LAW , the ORG was responsible for the proper keeping of land registers . In its judgment it set forth the criteria under which the ORG could be held liable : damage , an unlawful act by a civil servant and a causal link between the damage and the act . It also pointed out that the damage must have been permanent and the application must have been made within DATE from the actual occurrence of the damage and , whatever the circumstances , within a general limitation period of DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG repeated that under LAW , the ORG was responsible for the proper keeping of land registers . In that particular case , the party concerned was unable to have certain interim measures applied to the property of the person indebted to him because the land registers had not been kept in accordance with the regulations .

On DATE , the general assembly of the plenary ORG ( PERSON ) found that the ordinary courts had jurisdiction where a document of title had been declared void by ORG on the ground that the land at issue had been part of the public forest estate ( the area was subsequently excluded from the public forest estate as it had ceased to have the characteristics of forest land ) . In that case , the administrative courts had dismissed a claim for compensation , relying on the judgment of ORG in which the interested party ’s document of title had been declared void . They had considered that that judgment was in accordance with the law .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the lower court that had dismissed the interested party ’s application and held that the ORG should be found strictly liable for the acts of civil servants of the cadastral commission , who had concluded in error that the land at issue was not part of the public forest estate . Because of that act , no reference had been made in the land register as regards the forest status of the land , which had been sold to third parties who had relied upon the registers . In that particular case , the land at issue had been registered in the names of third parties following the conclusions of the cadastral commission in DATE and a deed of title had initially been issued in their name . The plaintiff had acquired the land in DATE on the basis of information appearing in the land register , which made no reference to its being forest land . DATE the cadastral commission carried out further surveys and concluded that the land at issue was no longer part of the forest estate as it had ceased to have the characteristics of a forest . It decided to exclude it from the forest estate . A note to this effect was added to the land register in DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE , which had found that the administrative courts had jurisdiction to deal with disputes concerning claims for compensation in connection with land registration following surveys carried out by the cadastral commission . In that particular case , the land had been acquired by the interested party in DATE . It had then been registered in his name following a cadastral commission survey . Later , the document of title issued to the party concerned was declared void by the court on the ground that the land was part of the forest estate . The court dismissed the application , holding as follows :

“ The claimant is seeking compensation on the basis of CARDINAL administrative measures : the issuing of the document of title and its invalidation as a result of the delimitation of the forest boundary . The claimant submits in addition that the administrative authority committed an error in so far as he , as the holder of the document of title , was not notified of the result of the delimitation following the survey . A claim for compensation for damage caused by an administrative measure may only be brought before the administrative court by way of an action for damages . ”

On DATE , in response to an application of CARDINAL DATE by PERSON FAC , the claimant ’s representative in the above - mentioned case ( and also the representative of the applicant in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , ORG ( PERSON ) stated that there was no contradiction between the CARDINAL earlier judgments and that accordingly , it was not necessary to resort to the case - law harmonisation procedure .

By a judgment of DATE the general assembly of ORG upheld the judgment of the lower court , which had held the ORG strictly liable for the acts of civil servants of ORG . In that particular case , a third party had sold land to the claimant in DATE on the basis of a false court decision , despite the fact that in DATE , the land in question had been classified by the cadastral commission as grazing land ( mera ) and therefore ORG property . The lower court had partly allowed the claim and had awarded compensation for the house that the claimant had built and the trees he had planted on the land at issue . ORG held that the fact that the claimant could take action against the third party did not exempt the administration from strict liability . Even in the absence of fault , the ORG was liable as long as CARDINAL conditions were met : there had been a wrongful act , damage had been caused and there was a causal link between the wrongful act and the damage . Furthermore , ORG made reference to the provisions of LAW protecting the good faith of a person who had relied on the land register .

On DATE ORG dismissed a claim for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the claimant as a result of having his document of title declared void because his land was part of the forest estate . The claimant applied to ORG after having referred the matter to the ordinary courts , which had declined jurisdiction ratione materiae . According to ORG , the claim was out of time as the claimant should have brought it within DATE from the date on which the judgment annulling his document of title became final .


The applicant , Mr Roman Nikolaevich Choban , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG , LOC , GPE . The applicant is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE . ORG are represented by PERSON , coagent , of ORG . ORG , who participate in the proceedings as CARDINAL party ( LAW ) , are represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

At TIME on DATE the applicant , Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON , NORP nationals on their way from GPE to GPE , crossed the NORP border at ORG , on the GPE river . They were carrying large amounts of cash , because they intended to purchase goods in GPE and resell them in GPE . The applicant submits that they declared the money to the customs authorities as follows : Mr PERSON – MONEY ( ORG ) , the applicant – USD CARDINAL , and Mr PERSON – nil . However , it seems that later only one customs declaration was found , in which Mr PERSON had declared ORG CARDINAL . The applicant further submits that after the CARDINAL got out of the customs he gave ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to Mr PERSON as prepayment for the transportation costs of the goods they intended to buy in GPE and ORG CARDINAL to Mr PERSON as prepayment for his help for the purchasing of the goods . After that the CARDINAL hid all the money in the minibus in which they were travelling .

TIME , at TIME , when the CARDINAL were QUANTITY south of ORG , near PERSON , an armed gang , some of which were dressed as police officers , stopped the minibus , pretending to carry out a routine police check . They hit Mr PERSON several times in the head and , after he tried to run , shot him dead . Mr PERSON was also hit several times in the head . The applicant was shot in the thigh and later hit in the head . The applicant submits that the robbers pulled a bag hanging around his neck and took it away . According to him , his copy of the customs declaration in which he had declared the ORG CARDINAL at ORG was in that bag . The robbers were not able to find the money hidden in the minibus and left the scene . The police arrived TIME and the applicant and Mr PERSON were taken to a hospital . Later they returned to GPE .

A criminal investigation was opened into the incident . On DATE an investigator searched the minibus in the presence of the applicant , an expert and CARDINAL certifying witnesses , and seized the money which was hidden there as evidence in the pending criminal proceedings against the alleged robbers . The total amount found was USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . According to the declarations of the applicant and Mr PERSON , it broke down as follows : ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL belonging to the deceased Mr PERSON , ORG CARDINAL belonging to Mr PERSON , and ORG belonging to the applicant . The investigator drew up a record which was signed by himself , the applicant , Mr PERSON and CARDINAL certifying witnesses .

The applicant submits that when he was released from hospital DATE , he requested the investigator to return the money . However , the investigator refused , stating that applicant had imported the money into GPE without declaring them at the border , because the applicant 's customs declaration was missing .

On an unspecified date in DATE or DATE the applicant , PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON 's widow requested from the ORG , which was supervising the investigation , to return the money seized as evidence . In a decree of CARDINAL DATE that ORG refused . Their lawyer appealed to ORG . In a decree of DATE ORG ordered that ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL be handed over to Mr PERSON 's widow , because there was no doubt about their owner and about the fact that they had been duly declared upon Mr PERSON 's entry in GPE . It found that the remaining USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL could not be returned , because the money had been hidden in the minibus and there was no declaration for its importing . On the one hand , this made it impossible to determine who was its owner , and , on the other , whether it had been declared upon entry in GPE , as required by the Regulation on Importing and Exporting of Currency Valuables of DATE , which made it an administrative offence to not declare currency at the border . The prosecution authorities were not competent to rule on this matter and therefore the currency was to be turned over to ORG . A copy of the decree was sent to the lawyer who was representing the applicant and Mr PERSON 's widow in the criminal proceedings against the alleged robbers . From the applicant 's submissions it transpires that he was made aware of that decree .

Pursuant to that decree , in DATE ORG in PERSON turned the money over to ORG .

Apparently thereafter the customs authorities opened proceedings against the applicant for having failed to declare the money at the border , as required by section CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) , and as a result the money was forfeited by a decision of DATE . It is unclear whether the applicant was notified about the proceedings . He did not seek judicial review of the decision of DATE . The file containing all documents relating to these proceedings was destroyed on DATE , because of the expiry of the timelimit for its archiving at ORG .

DATE after the incident of CARDINAL DATE most of the alleged attackers who had robbed the applicant , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were identified and arrested . They were charged with having committed numerous armed robberies during the period DATE .

The investigation was completed in DATE and in DATE an indictment was submitted to ORG against QUANTITY persons .

The Veliko Tarnovo Regional Court held hearings on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The applicant did not appear in person , but was represented by a lawyer retained by him and Mr PERSON . Numerous witnesses and expert witnesses were heard and other evidence admitted .

On an unspecified date during the preliminary investigation or at the first hearing on DATE the applicant made a civil claim against the accused , claiming nonpecuniary damages .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG found all CARDINAL accused guilty of numerous robberies and related offences and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment . It rejected the applicant 's claim .

The prosecution appealed to ORG . So did all but one of the accused . On DATE the applicant 's and Mr PERSON 's lawyer also appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the applicant 's claim had been improperly rejected .

ORG held hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE .

In DATE the judicial system in GPE was reformed . As a result , on QUANTITY DATE the case was transferred to the newly created ORG , which had henceforth jurisdiction to hear appeals against judgments of the ORG .

A hearing listed for DATE failed to take place , because the applicant and Mr PERSON had not been duly summoned .

A hearing took place on DATE . The applicant , who had been duly summoned for it by letter rogatory , did not show up . He notified the court by telex that he did not wish to pursue the appeal . Accordingly , the court discontinued the proceedings relating to the applicant 's civil claim . Its decision was not subject to appeal .

On DATE the ORG quashed the ORG judgment , noting that CARDINAL of the accused had been represented at the preliminary investigation stage by the same lawyer despite an obvious conflict of interest . In the court 's view , that fact had vitiated the entire procedure and warranted the remitting the case to the preliminary investigation stage .

The proceedings are still pending . For a more detailed account of their unfolding after DATE see PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The applicant avers that in DATE he wrote letters requesting the returning of the money to ORG , the ORG , the ORG and ORG . He further avers that he received no reply . However , he does not provide any evidence to corroborate these averments .

The applicant submits that in DATE he travelled CARDINAL times to GPE to give evidence in the criminal proceedings against the alleged robbers . It does not seem that on any of these occasions he inquired about what had become of the money at ORG .

On DATE and DATE and DATE ORG of GPE , acting pursuant to requests by the applicant , sent letters to ORG of GPE , inquiring why the applicant 's money had not been returned to him .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , which was sent to ORG of GPE and apparently later transmitted to the NORP authorities , ORG stated , inter alia , that the ORG CARDINAL had not been returned to the applicant by the authorities dealing with the criminal case , because it was unclear who its owner was , and because it had not been declared upon the applicant 's entry in GPE and could have been the object of a customs offence . This was apparent from ORG Office 's decree of DATE . A copy of the decree was enclosed .

The applicant avers that he also contacted various other bodies in GPE . In particular , he addressed ORG , which in turn contacted the NORP embassy in GPE . However , he does not provide any evidence to corroborate this averment .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that a piece of physical evidence seized in the context of criminal proceedings is held by the authorities until the conclusion of the proceedings . LAW that LAW provides that items seized as evidence may be returned to their owners prior to the conclusion of the proceedings only if this would not hamper the elucidation of the facts of the case .

Section CARDINAL of the ORG , as in force at the material time , provided that the importing and exporting of foreign currency was to be effected in a manner specified by ORG and ORG . Section CARDINAL of the Regulation on the Importing and Exporting of Currency Valuables of DATE , made by ORG and ORG pursuant to section CARDINAL of the ORG , as in force at the relevant time , provided that foreign currency , whose value was above ORG CARDINAL and which was carried by persons crossing the border , had to be declared to the customs authorities . Any failure of abide by the provisions of the Regulation constituted an administrative offence ( section CARDINAL of the Regulation and section CARDINAL of the ORG ) .

ORG of DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) defines administrative offences and penalties and governs the procedure for punishing such offences . The possible penalties are a reprimand , a fine , or occupational disbarment ( section CARDINAL of the AOPA ) . In addition , the things which constitute the object of an offence may be forfeited if they belong to the offender and if the respective statute so provides ( section CARDINAL ) of the ORG ) .

The authority competent to impose an administrative penalty is the administrative body which is responsible for the enforcement of the statute or the statutory instrument defining the offence , or the administrative body expressly authorised to do so under the respective statute or statutory instrument ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG ) . The proceedings start with the drawing up of a report , a copy of which has to be served on the alleged offender , who has the right to comment on it ( sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the ORG ) . A copy of the decision imposing an administrative penalty must likewise be served on the offender ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG ) . If the offender can not be found at the address specified by him and his new address is unknown , a note to this effect is made on the decision and it is deemed served as of the date of the note ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG ) . The decision is subject to appeal before the competent district court ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG ) within DATE after it has been served on the offender ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the AOPA ) . The court may affirm , vary or quash the decision ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the AOPA ) .


CASE OF IVANOVSKI AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YOUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP In DATE the applicants concluded a sales contract with CARDINAL individuals buying shares from the A. company ( “ the company ” ) .

On DATE the first applicant brought a civil action requesting ORG ( “ the first - instance court ” ) to order the company to register the sales contracts in its book of shareholders and to provide them with a certificate of title . On DATE the second applicant and Mr PERSON joined the first applicant 's claim . During the proceedings , the applicants specified their claim on CARDINAL occasions .

DATE and DATE , the first - instance court ordered CARDINAL adjournments , none of which was requested by the applicants .

On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicants ' claim finding that they had failed to comply with the applicable legislation and that the company had not had a capacity to stand in the proceedings . It also dismissed their request of CARDINAL DATE for an interim measure prohibiting the vendors to dispose of the shares .

On DATE ORG partly upheld the applicants ' appeal of DATE and remitted the case for a renewed examination .

On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicants ' claim . The decision was served on them on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' appeal . They were served with the decision on DATE .


Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were most recently represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .

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

On TIME Ms D. was found dead not far from her home . Experts concluded that she had been strangled at QUANTITY TIME .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of PERSON murder . According to the applicant , at the time of the arrest he was with his brother , who was also taken to the police station .

The applicant alleged that several police officers , under the leadership of officer NORP , had subjected him to physical ill - treatment and psychological pressure with a view to extracting a confession from him . They had allegedly handcuffed him to a table leg and beat him with rubber truncheons , punching him and kicking him in various parts of his body . The applicant also alleged that the beating had worsened when he had requested a meeting with a lawyer , so he signed a waiver refusing his right to legal assistance “ for the time being ” . He agreed to plead guilty , allegedly under the threat that if he did not , his brother would be tortured . The applicant referred to the fact that the police had lost the black shirt and black trousers in which he had been arrested ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . According to him , the clothes in question had been left torn and bloodstained , and their loss was to be viewed as evidence in support of his allegation of ill - treatment . He also submitted that a request he had made to be examined by a doctor had been refused .

According to the investigation authorities , the applicant had confessed to the murder of his own free will . As to the issue regarding his clothes , it transpired that during his arrest he had been wearing the same clothes as had been worn during TIME of the murder ( a black shirt and black trousers ) . As a result , the police brought him some sportswear to change into which they had retrieved from his home , so that the clothes in which he had been arrested could be sent away for forensic expert examination with a view to establishing whether they contained any evidence linking him to the crime .

On DATE the applicant confessed to the incriminated murder . According to him , he did so when he saw that his brother had been released . His confession stated that he had been having an affair with PERSON since DATE . On DATE he went to see her at her home . Having talked to the applicant briefly , PERSON left under the pretext that she needed to buy some bread and asked him to wait for her . She returned TIME , which made the applicant angry . In the course of the argument that followed , PERSON admitted that she had been having a relationship with another man and verbally insulted the applicant . A fight ensued and the applicant ended up strangling PERSON with the strap of her handbag .

The case file contains a waiver by the applicant of his right to legal assistance dated DATE , with a handwritten and signed statement as follows :

“ I refuse legal representation for the time being . I have been informed of my rights and I understand them . ”

The applicant repeated his confession when he was questioned as a suspect DATE .

On DATE a forensic medical expert examined the applicant . The examination report , which was also signed by the applicant , reported that there were no injuries to the applicant ’s body and none complained of .

NORP The applicant did not mention the expert report in his submissions to the Court . According to him , following his arrest the police had unsuccessfully attempted to transfer him to ORG no . CARDINAL ( “ GPE no . CARDINAL ” ) , the administration of which had allegedly refused to accept him on the grounds that he had serious injuries .

On DATE a reconstruction of events took place , during which the applicant repeated his confession and explained how he had killed PERSON The reconstruction took place in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses and was video - recorded .

On DATE the applicant signed another waiver of legal assistance , similar to that of DATE . He also confirmed his earlier statements in full , adding that it had not been his intention to kill Ms NORP and that she had provoked him . The applicant alleged in his submissions to the ORG that he had done so having been promised a meeting with his parents .

Some of the documents in the case file ( namely a letter from ORG to the applicant ’s mother dated DATE and an information note of the head of the GPE medical unit of DATE ) suggest that the applicant was transferred from the police detention facility to GPE no . CARDINAL on DATE . However , an information note by the ORG governor of DATE addressed “ to whom it may concern ” suggests that the applicant was held in GPE no . CARDINAL from DATE to DATE . The applicant also submitted that he had been transferred to the GPE on DATE , and that before that , the ORG had twice refused to accept him as a detainee on account of his unspecified injuries .

The aforementioned information note of the head of the GPE medical unit stated that the applicant underwent clinical , laboratory and ORG examinations upon his arrival to the GPE on DATE , with no injuries or other health - related concerns having been discovered . It also stated that the applicant never applied for medical assistance during his detention in GPE no . CARDINAL .

On DATE a lawyer , PERSON , entered into a legal services agreement with the applicant ’s parents .

On DATE the investigator rejected PERSON ’s request for a meeting with the applicant , on the grounds that the latter had waived his right to legal assistance . The investigator informed the lawyer that he would ask the applicant whether he had changed his mind about having legal representation .

On DATE the applicant once again waived his right to legal assistance , stating that he refused the services of lawyers , including those of M. The investigator passed this on to PERSON , who complained to ORG and to ORG that the investigator had overstepped his competence and that the applicant ’s right to legal assistance had been violated .

As alleged by the applicant , on an unspecified date the investigator suggested a lawyer for him who had unsuccessfully solicited a bribe from the applicant ’s parents in exchange for having their son declared insane .

On DATE the applicant had a meeting with his parents and complained to them that he had been ill - treated by the police .

On DATE he underwent a forensic psychiatric examination , with a view to establishing whether he could be held criminally liable for his actions . He stated to the experts that he did not remember the murder , but did recall that Ms D. had been rude to him and that they had had a fight . He claimed that he could not remember any further details .

On DATE the applicant stated that he wished to be represented by PERSON , who was admitted in the proceedings the following day .

On DATE the applicant retracted his earlier confessions as having been given under duress , and changed his plea to not guilty . According to his new account of the events of CARDINAL DATE , he had not seen PERSON after she had left under the pretext of the need to buy some bread . Having waited for her in vain for TIME , he had returned home at TIME

On DATE ORG wrote a letter to PERSON in response to his complaint about the alleged violation of the applicant ’s right to legal assistance . The letter stated that on DATE and DATE the investigator had informed the applicant of his right to have legal representation ; however , the applicant had voluntarily waived that right and had signed forms to that effect . As soon as he changed his mind , his request for legal representation was allowed .

On DATE the applicant was indicted on a charge of premeditated murder and committed for trial .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) found the applicant guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court mainly based its verdict on the applicant ’s confession statements made during his initial police questioning . Among the witnesses examined by the court was PERSON . , who had known the victim for DATE before her death . In giving evidence , PERSON . stated that he had met up with her on DATE and they had had sexual intercourse after she had left the applicant under the pretext that she was going to buy some bread . As to the applicant ’s allegation of ill - treatment , the court heard evidence from several police officers who denied any coercion . It also referred to the forensic medical examination report of DATE , which stated that no injuries to the applicant ’s body had been discovered or complained of . Lastly , the court noted that the applicant had not raised that complaint even after he had started to be legally represented .

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed , submitting that the verdict had been based solely on the applicant ’s confessions given under duress and in the absence of a lawyer . The appeal also stated that the trial court had failed to give any consideration to the fact that the witness ORG . had been detained for DATE and had also been questioned as a suspect .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) quashed the above judgment and remitted the case to the same first - instance court for a fresh examination on the basis that CARDINAL of the judges had started a hearing in a different case while the panel had been supposed to be in the deliberations room preparing its verdict in respect of the applicant . Accordingly , the secrecy of the deliberations had been breached . The appellate court also held that the applicant ’s allegation of ill - treatment had not been duly investigated .

On DATE ORG instructed ORG ( “ ORG Office ” ) to investigate the applicant ’s allegation of illtreatment .

On DATE ORG delivered a ruling refusing to open a criminal case against the investigator and the CARDINAL police officers involved in the applicant ’s detention and questioning for lack of corpus delicti in their actions . The prosecutor relied , in particular , on the statements of the officers in question and on the applicant ’s forensic medical examination of DATE . The ruling also stated that the applicant ’s initial statements had contained such factual details that could only be known to him and could not have possibly been dictated to him by the investigator . Lastly , the prosecutor noted that the applicant had not raised any complaints of ill - treatment even after having been legally represented . Accordingly , his later complaints in that regard were considered as being a part of his attempts to escape liability .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother requested ORG to return the applicant ’s clothes seized on DATE of his arrest .

On DATE ORG delivered another judgment in which it again found the applicant guilty of premeditated murder , but reduced the sentence to DATE . It relied on the applicant ’s confession , having found that it had been given in full freedom because , firstly , there were written waivers by the applicant of his right to legal assistance , and , secondly , because his allegation of ill - treatment was considered to be unsubstantiated . The court noted that the applicant had not complained of any ill - treatment by the police during the pre - trial investigation . It dismissed as untruthful the statement of the applicant ’s acquaintance , who when questioned as a witness alleged having seen the applicant at the police station in TIME on DATE wearing torn and blood - stained sportswear . The court also relied on the statements of other witnesses who , in particular , had seen the applicant waiting for Ms NORP on the evening on DATE . Furthermore , the court relied on the findings of a forensic cytological expert examination , which suggested that the antigens found under his nails could have belonged to the victim . ORG referred to the following circumstances warranting a reduction of the applicant ’s sentence : the fact that he had pleaded guilty , was remorseful and had actively assisted the police in the initial stages of the investigation , and the fact that he had a minor child and had been in gainful employment before his detention .

The applicant appealed against the above judgment , reiterating his earlier arguments and also contending that criminal procedure law provided that legal representation should have been afforded to him as from his very first questioning by the police , as he was LANGUAGE - speaking and did not have a good command of NORP . In support of the allegation of police illtreatment , he pointed out that GPE no . CARDINAL had refused to accept him as a detainee several times on account of his injuries . The applicant also alleged that the police had concealed the fact that they had withheld the clothes in which he had been arrested and questioned and which bore traces of his ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s mother , in reply to her request of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that there was no information in the investigation file about any clothes having being seized and that no such clothes were among the material evidence in the case .

On DATE ORG further mitigated the applicant ’s sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , having taken into account the provocative behaviour of the victim and the fact that the applicant had a minor child to take care of . The appellate court ruled so in partially allowing the applicant ’s appeal . At the same time , it regarded his allegations of ill - treatment in police custody and of coercion into self - incrimination as unsubstantiated . It held that no facts in support of that allegation had been established and that there was no documentary evidence to prove that the applicant had sustained any injuries . Lastly , the court noted that the applicant had never raised the issue of his insufficient command of NORP during the pre - trial investigation .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s cassation appeal as unsubstantiated , having found that the grievances submitted therein had already been duly examined by the lower - level courts .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother complained to ORG that her son had been ill - treated . She also maintained that he had been convicted of a crime which he had not committed .

On DATE ORG , on the instruction of the prosecutor , analysed the video - recording of the applicant ’s police questioning and the reconstruction of events of CARDINAL and DATE respectively , with a view to establishing whether the applicant could be regarded as having been subjected to psychological pressure . The forensic psychologist concluded that no such pressure had been put on the applicant , who had been making his statements freely . The applicant ’s behaviour and way of speaking suggested that his self - incriminating statements had been voluntary and truthful .

On DATE ORG issued a decision refusing to open a criminal case in respect of the loss of the applicant ’s clothes . It was established that the police had indeed withheld the clothes in which he had been arrested , as they had been required for a forensic examination . The loss of the clothes , although having caused some pecuniary damage to the applicant , could not be regarded as proof that he had been ill - treated . Furthermore , the pecuniary damage was not so considerable as to warrant a criminal investigation .

On DATE the Deputy ORG delivered a report summarising the findings of the investigation into the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment and the loss of his clothes , which had been verified and dismissed as inaccurate . The prosecutor referred , in particular , to the forensic medical examination of DATE which found no injuries to the applicant ’s body , and the forensic psychological examination of CARDINAL DATE which gave no indication that any psychological pressure had been put on him . The applicant ’s submissions that he had been refused admission to the GPE on CARDINAL occasions had been verified and dismissed as untrue . The prosecutor consulted the relevant documentation of the GPE and questioned its medical staff , who reported that the applicant had arrived there on DATE and had undergone extensive medical examinations the same day ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) .

On DATE the GPE ORG upheld the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE stating that the loss of the applicant ’s clothes by the police was not proof that a criminal offence had been committed .

On DATE ORG quashed the decisions of the prosecutor and first - instance court and remitted the case for additional investigation . As noted in its ruling , the applicant alleged that the loss of the clothes in question had caused damage to him far more serious than the money they cost . Namely , he argued that , because of this loss , he was not able to prove that he had suffered ill - treatment in the hands of the police . This argument had not however been duly examined .

On DATE ORG issued another decision refusing to institute a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s complaints , having found them unsubstantiated .

The prosecutor informed the applicant and his relatives , on several occasions , in reply to their repeated complaints about his alleged ill - treatment , that they could challenge the decision of CARDINAL DATE before the higher - level prosecution authorities or the courts . It appears that no further complaints were lodged .

Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW concerning the right to legal assistance and the right not to incriminate oneself can be found in the judgment on the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

The provisions concerning the obligation to institute criminal proceedings and investigate a crime can be found in the judgment in the case of NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

A summary of relevant documents of ORG can be found in the judgment of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( département of LOC ) .

He applied to the GPE tribunal de grande instance for legal aid to bring an action in damages against Mr T. , a lawyer , for failing to represent him properly in court proceedings . He was granted full legal aid on DATE .

Three lawyers were assigned in turn by the president of the bar council to represent the applicant under the legal - aid scheme , but they applied for permission to withdraw from the case , owing to personal links with the lawyer the applicant wished to sue . The last of them withdrew from the case in DATE or DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked the president of the legal - aid office to assign a fourth lawyer . On DATE he made a like request to the president of the bar council . The registry of the legal - aid office forwarded the applicant 's letter to a lawyer who had been delegated by the bar council to the legal - aid office .

On DATE that lawyer wrote to the president of the bar council in GPE to request the appointment of a fourth lawyer . The latter took no immediate action on the request , other than to seek information about the nature of the applicant 's case , which he was given .

In the absence of a reply , the applicant wrote to the Minister of Justice on DATE . All he received in reply was a letter which arrived on DATE informing him that his request had been transferred to the Director of ORG . The applicant pointed this out in a letter to the minister dated DATE .

In DATE the applicant received a reply from the president of the bar council informing him that the grant of legal aid dated DATE had lapsed . Consequently , he was advised to make a fresh application if he wished to pursue his claim against Mr T. The applicant did not reply to that letter .

Legal Aid Act ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) :

“ Natural persons with insufficient means to enable them to assert their rights in the courts shall be eligible for legal aid . Such aid may be full or partial . ... ”

“ The costs which a recipient of legal aid would have had to bear if he or she had not been granted legal aid shall be borne by the ORG . ... ”

“ Recipients of legal aid shall be entitled to the assistance of a lawyer and of any other member of the legal profession whose services are required in the proceedings .

The lawyers and other members of the legal profession shall be chosen by the recipient of legal aid . They may also be chosen by the officer of the court initially chosen or assigned to the case .

If the recipient of legal aid fails to make a choice or if an officer of the court who has been chosen refuses to act , the lawyer or other member of the legal profession shall be assigned to the case by the president of the bar council or the president of his or her professional regulatory body , without prejudice to the rules governing official appointments or assignments .

An officer of the court who was acting for the recipient of legal aid before such aid was granted must continue to do so . He or she may only be released from acting in exceptional circumstances and under the conditions laid down by the president of the bar council or the president of his or her professional regulatory body . ”

Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE implementing LAW :

“ Applications for legal aid shall be lodged with or sent by the applicant or his or her representative to the legal - aid office .

They shall contain the following information :

( CARDINAL ) the last name , first names , occupation , nationality and domicile of the applicant or , if the applicant is a juristic person , its name , form , object and registered office ;

( CARDINAL ) as applicable :

( i ) the nature of the claim and a brief summary of the grounds ;

( ii ) a summary of the existing dispute , the identity of the parties and the nature of the proposed settlement before action ;

“ The statement of means referred to in LAW shall contain :

( CARDINAL ) details of the applicant 's family and professional situation ;

( CARDINAL ) a full detailed list of all means of any kind directly or indirectly available to or at the free disposal of the applicant during DATE and , if applicable , DATE in which the application is made , other than the family benefits and social benefits referred to in LAW , and of the means of his or her spouse and , if applicable , other people habitually living in his or her home and any dependants ;

( CARDINAL ) the nature and value of his or her movable and immovable assets , including non - income producing assets ;

( CARDINAL ) details of the outward signs of his or her lifestyle .

Unless the applicant is not habitually resident in GPE , the statement shall be made on a printed form conforming to the models specified in a joint order of the Minister of ORG and the Minister for the ORG . It shall contain a statement of the criminal - law provisions set out in paragraph II of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE . ”

“ A grant of legal aid shall lapse if the applicant fails to bring the court proceedings for which it was granted within DATE after being notified of the grant . ”

“ If the applicant for legal aid fails to produce a document establishing that a lawyer or other member of the legal profession chosen by him or her has agreed to act , the duly appointed member of the office or section representing the relevant profession may proceed to assign an officer of the court to the case . ”

“ For the purposes of DATE , a lawyer appointed as a member of the office or section must be in possession of an authority issued by the president of his or her bar . ... ”

“ If no lawyer or other member of the legal profession has been chosen by the recipient of legal aid or assigned in accordance with ORG DATE to CARDINAL , the secretary of the legal - aid office or section shall , immediately after the decision to grant legal aid has been taken , send a copy to the president of the bar council and , if appropriate , the president of each of the professional regulatory bodies of the various officers of the court qualified to represent the recipient of legal aid , to assist him or her and to perform such acts and take such steps as may be necessary in the substantive proceedings , or in any interlocutory application or enforcement proceedings for which the legal aid was granted .

If it appears necessary to instruct a new lawyer or other member of the legal profession after legal aid has been granted , the secretary of the legal - aid office or section shall , on an application by the recipient of legal aid , send a copy of the decision to the president of the bar council and the president of each of the professional regulatory bodies referred to in the preceding sub - paragraph . ”

“ The president of the bar council or of the professional regulatory body or his or her representative shall appoint the lawyer or other member of the legal profession who will act for the recipient of legal aid .

He or she shall notify the following of his or her appointment :

( CARDINAL ) the lawyer or other member of the legal profession concerned , to whom he or she will forward a copy of the legal - aid office 's decision with a reminder of the provisions of LAW ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP the secretary of the legal - aid office , who will immediately inform the recipient of legal aid and invite him or her to contact the officer of the court concerned , and the senior clerk or secretary of any court or tribunal before which the litigation is pending ; the name of the officer of the court shall then be recorded in the case file ;

“ If the officer of the court who was acting for the recipient of legal aid before legal aid was granted applies for permission to withdraw from the case , the president of the bar council or of the relevant professional regulatory body shall decide that application in a reasoned decision in accordance with the provisions set out in the fourth sub - paragraph of LAW of the aforementioned LAW DATE .

The decision will be served on the recipient of legal aid , the officer or officers of the court and the secretary of the legal - aid office . ”

“ In any case in which an officer of the court who was acting for the recipient of legal aid is released from his duty to act , a replacement shall be appointed immediately . ”

ORG ( legislative section ) :

“ The ORG shall be under an obligation to compensate for damage caused by any malfunctioning of the system of justice . This liability shall be incurred only in respect of gross negligence or a denial of justice . ... ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a village in LOC of LOC . The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. A. NORP , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

On DATE ORG of LOC dissolved the applicant ’s marriage .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against his former wife , requesting partition of a house of QUANTITY sq . m. total surface and other property acquired before the divorce . On DATE the ORG of the LOC discontinued proceedings in the case because of the withdrawal of the action by the applicant who had reached a settlement agreement with the defendant . The applicant did not appeal but later , on an unspecified date , since the defendant had failed to adhere to the settlement agreement , successfully pursued the supervisory review procedure - an extraordinary remedy provided for by the NORP legislation .

In the course of supervisory review proceedings , on DATE , the ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE in view of procedural defects ( it had not been explained to the applicant that his withdrawal of the action would deprive him of a right to re - lodge the same action in the future ) and ordered a fresh examination of the case by the same ORG .

The examination of the case was then adjourned several times : on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE on the defendant ’s request ; on DATE on the applicant ’s request and on CARDINAL DATE because of the parties’ failure to appear .

On DATE ORG ordered an expert opinion concerning the value of the house . It was obtained on DATE .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned as the parties failed to appear .

On DATE the proceedings were suspended due to the applicant ’s illness .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim concerning the partition of the house and awarded a sum corresponding to his share in the house , to be paid by the defendant . Following the applicant ’s appeal , on DATE , ORG quashed the judgment in part concerning the division of the house , pointing out that the first instance court should have examined the technical possibility of the physical partition of the house , after obtaining an expert opinion if necessary , and ordered a fresh examination of the issue .

On DATE ORG ordered another expert opinion concerning the value of the disputed house and repair works made before the dissolution of the marriage . The expert opinion was obtained on DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the examination of the case was adjourned because of the parties’ failure to appear .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant compensation for the repairs , rejecting the rest of his claims . On DATE the applicant requested the court to restore the time - limit for appealing against the judgment . On DATE the court granted the request . On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , as it lacked reasons and references to material and procedural law , and ordered a fresh examination of the case by the same court .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the hearing was adjourned due to the parties’ failure to appear .

On DATE ORG ordered CARDINAL more expert opinion , asking whether it would be possible physically to divide the house , taking into account the applicant ’s entitlement to CARDINAL of the money spent on its repairs . The expert opinion was obtained in DATE .

On DATE the court found that the partition of the house was impossible and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant pecuniary compensation . The applicant did not appeal and the judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the bailiff ’s service found that the defendant had no property which could be seized . On DATE the enforcement proceedings were closed because of the transfer of the writs of execution to a local social security authority for deductions to be made from the defendant ’s pension . There is a certificate of a local pension fund dated DATE confirming that regular deductions were made from the defendant ’s pension by way of execution of the judgment .

As the deductions from the defendant ’s pension were so small as to make the prospect of the prompt execution of the judgment unrealistic , on DATE the applicant attempted to bring a new action against the defendant , again requesting the partition of the house . On DATE the Justice of the Peace of ORG of the Kurskiy District of LOC refused to examine the action , because it raised an issue substantially the same as the one which had been decided by the judgment of DATE . On DATE the ORG of LOC upheld this decision on appeal .