Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants , husband and wife , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .

Both applicants have been blind since childhood .

DATE the first applicant was officially employed by an enterprise run by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ; NORP товариство сліпих ) , a public organisation subsidised by the ORG to provide assistance to blind people . However , as appears from his employer ’s statement that DATE the first applicant actually worked at DATE . In DATE the first applicant reached retirement age and was dismissed on redundancy . The second applicant stopped working in DATE .

Since DATE the family have officially occupied CARDINAL - bedroom flats owned by the ORG , although the applicants claim that they have used CARDINAL of them . The flats were supplied with oven heating , but have no drains or hot running water .

The applicants have given birth to CARDINAL children : NORP born in DATE , GPE born in DATE , GPE born in DATE , NORP born in DATE , ORG born in DATE , PERSON born in DATE and PERSON born in DATE .

In DATE CARDINAL of the children ( GPE , FAC and FAC ) were taken into public care on account of the applicants’ inability to provide them with adequate care and upbringing . The children were initially placed in various institutions ; however , it appears that currently all of them , except PERSON , who has been adopted with the applicants’ consent , reside in ORG ( Роменська загальноосвітня школа-інтернат І-ІІІ ступенів для дітей-сиріт і дітей , позбавлених батьківського піклування ім. LOC ) .

In DATE GPE , the eldest son , who remained in the applicants’ care , was also admitted to ORG . The parents took him home for DATE and vacations . On several occasions the school administration complained to the municipal authorities that GPE habitually ran away from school , wandering , collecting empty bottles and begging . No specific details or incidents were given .

DATE representatives of ORG ( PERSON у справах неповнолітніх ) and ORG ( Орган опіки та піклування ) , in cooperation with several other municipal authorities , visited the applicants’ flat on CARDINAL occasions and drafted reports concerning the suitability of the living conditions for the upbringing of the children who remained in their care . According to these reports , the conditions were grossly unsatisfactory . In particular , the LOC badly needed renovation ; they were cold , dirty , full of cob - webs and smelled of human excrement . Clothes and rags were scattered around the floor and on the beds . Dishes were not washed . PERSON , if present , was very dirty . The baby ’s mattress had rotted in the middle because of large quantities of urine . The baby ’s cot was unusable . No food was found in the kitchen . The children were dirty and dressed unseasonably . CARDINAL report also noted that GPE , the smallest child , had a skin rash . According to another report “ the children were sick ” , although no symptoms were noted . On CARDINAL occasion the children would not let the inspectors in as the parents had gone out to buy milk and the children were alone with the oldest child , GPE

On several unspecified dates DATE the ORG provided the applicants with various assistance of unrecorded amounts , including firewood , clothing , shoes and alimentary products ( such as sugar , potatoes , grain and flour ) . In DATE the ORG also arranged for local student volunteers to do some renovations on the flat : in particular , to whitewash the walls and to paint the floor and windows .

On an unspecified date the applicants requested the municipal authorities to equip their household with natural gas in order to improve their heating , ability to cook and access to hot water . On DATE they were informed that their neighbours had strongly objected to this , finding it dangerous in view of the applicants’ blindness and the presence of small children . Moreover , it was technically unfeasible .

On DATE the applicants requested the Chief of ORG to assist them in finding a suitable job for the first applicant . There is no information as to the ensuing response .

On DATE ORG requested the Head of ORG to provide humanitarian assistance to the applicants’ family . There is no information as to the ensuing response .

On DATE PERSON was examined by a doctor , who recorded that his speech development was delayed and he appeared to be suffering from first - stage anaemia . The doctor further noted that the child ’s stomach was soft and not bloated ; he had a normal temperature , displayed no signs of malnutrition or skin rash , no enlargement of the lymph nodes or the liver , no redness in the throat and no abnormalities in urination or defecation .

On DATE the applicants received CARDINAL NORP hryvnyas ( ORG ) in financial assistance to pay for electricity .

On DATE ORG warned the applicants that they needed to improve the conditions in which their children were being brought up .

On an unidentified date the administration of the kindergarten attended by ORG since DATE issued a report on his development , stating that PERSON had attended the establishment regularly and that the parents brought him to school and took him home on time . The second applicant was reported to be actively interested in PERSON ’s affairs and generally responsive to remarks by teaching and medical staff . The child was reported to be somewhat stubborn and inactive during classes , but eager to communicate with other children . On the other hand , PERSON ’s classmates were reported to have been at times appalled by his untidy looks and dirty clothes .

NORP In DATE ORG certified that GPE and PERSON had been fed at school and that they had also been provided with vouchers for DATE camps , as they had been recorded as having first - stage anaemia .

On an unspecified date the first applicant instituted court proceedings against his employer , seeking to collect salary arrears and various compensatory payments , including compensation for idle time , for an unspecified period ending on DATE . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in view of a friendly settlement between the parties , pursuant to which the first applicant was to be paid ORG CARDINAL . On DATE ORG further awarded the first applicant ORG CARDINAL in various compensatory payments in respect of the subsequent idle period .

On DATE ORG initiated , at the request of ORG , court proceedings for the placement of GPE , PERSON and PERSON in public care .

On DATE the court , having heard the applicants , ORG and ORG , allowed the prosecutor ’s claim . The relevant part of the judgment stated as follows :

“ The defendants [ the applicants ] do not take care of or bring the children up properly . The children are dirty , hungry , and often stay at home alone ...

The representatives of ORG and ORG supported the claim and described the horrible ( жахливі ) living conditions of the defendants’ family , dirt , insufficient sanitary arrangements ( антисанітарія ) , very poor financial state ....

... According to a note from the children ’s hospital of DATE , PERSON and GPE are registered with the health centre due to first - stage anaemia ...

The court established that the living conditions of the children GPE , PERSON and PERSON are dangerous for their lives and health and moral upbringing , in particular the children are dirty , hungry , dressed unseasonably , are registered with the health centre ; GPE wanders , picks up empty bottles and begs , thus the children should be removed from the defendants and transferred to ORG ... ”

The applicants appealed against this decision . They stated that LAW GPE contained limited grounds for removal of children from their parents DATE evasion of child maintenance , cruelty , chronic alcoholism or drug addiction of parents , exploitation of children , involving them in begging and vagrancy . They insisted that they had never done any such things and that there was no proof that the conditions of their children ’s upbringing , albeit basic , were in fact dangerous . The applicants further explained that the fact that they could not provide the children with better conditions was only due to their blindness . They claimed that as people with a disability they were discriminated against and underlined that the ORG authorities should provide their family with the necessary support instead of removing their children . The applicants also referred to LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed their appeal . It repeated the conclusions of the first - instance court that leaving the children with the applicants would endanger the children ’s life , health and moral upbringing . It stated , inter alia :

“ The fact that the defendants were visually handicapped had no impact on the court ’s conclusions . The applicants did not prove that the ORG authorities created disadvantageous conditions for their life . Quite the opposite , as it follows from the case file , the ORG authorities acted within their power to help them .

According to LAW , the ORG can interfere with private and family life for the protection of health or morals , or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . Bearing this in mind and considering the facts of the case , the court comes to the conclusion that there was no violation of LAW . ”

The applicants appealed in cassation , raising essentially the same arguments as in their previous appeal . On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the appeal in cassation . The applicants’ children were not heard at any stage of the proceedings .

The judgment was enforced on DATE . Eventually , PERSON was placed in a school in PERSON , while PERSON and PERSON were placed in a school in GPE ( QUANTITY from Romny ) . According to submissions by an educational social worker ( соціальний педагог ) retained by ORG ’s new school dated DATE , ORG continued to run away from school , wandered , and often needed to be searched for .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

Article CARDINAL

“ No one shall be subject to interference in his or her personal and family life , except in cases envisaged by LAW ... ”

Article CARDINAL

“ ... The family , childhood , motherhood and fatherhood are under the protection of the ORG . ”

Article CARDINAL . Removal of the Child from the Parents without Depriving them of Parental Rights

“ CARDINAL . The court may decide to remove the child from both parents or CARDINAL of them without depriving them of parental rights , in cases referred to in DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , subparagraphs DATE , as well as in other situations if leaving the child with them is dangerous to his or her life , health and moral education .

In such a case , the child shall be given to the other parent , grandmother , grandfather , other relatives upon their request or to ORG .

In exceptional situations , when the child ’s life or health is seriously endangered , ORG or the prosecutor may order the immediate removal of the child from his or her parents .

In such a case , the Tutelage Board shall inform the prosecutor without delay and within DATE of the date of the decision shall lodge a claim with a court for deprivation of the parental rights of CARDINAL or both parents or for removal of the child from his or her mother or father without depriving them of parental rights .

The same claim can be lodged by the prosecutor .

Whenever the circumstances which have hampered the proper upbringing of the child by his or her parents disappear , the court , upon the GPE request , may order the return of the child ”

The relevant provisions of the PERSON read as follows :

Section CARDINAL . A child and a family

“ ( ... ) Each child has the right to live in a family together with parents or in a family of CARDINAL of the parents and in their care ”

Section CARDINAL . Rights , obligations and responsibility of parents with respect to bringing up and development of a child

“ to be brought up in a family is a fundamental principle for development of a child ”

The ORG shall provide parents ... with support in fulfilment of their obligations on bringing up children .. , shall protect rights of a family ”

Section CARDINAL . Separation of a child and family

“ Children and parents shall not be separated against their will , except for cases when such a separation is necessary in the best interests of a child and is provided for by a legally valid court judgment ”

In her First Annual Report the Commissioner for Human Rights ( DATE ) mentioned as follows :

( ... ) The average social pension for a disabled person ... is CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) , which is DATE of the amount allocated for a child who attends boarding school ( UAH CARDINAL - CARDINAL per month ) ”

In the Preamble to the Convention it is mentioned that a child , for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality , should grow up in a family environment . According to LAW shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will , except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine , in accordance with applicable law and procedures , that such a separation is necessary in the best interests of the child . Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as CARDINAL involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents . In such a case all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known .

In its Concluding Observations , adopted on DATE upon consideration of the second periodic report of GPE , the ORG mentioned as follows :

“ ( ... ) the ORG remains concerned about the low level of resources in general for social services , health and education having a negative impact on the quality and accessibility of services , especially affecting families with children living in poverty ;

( ... ) The ORG is concerned that the principles of ... the right to have his/ her best interest as a primary consideration ... ( is ) not fully reflected in ORG legislation , policies and programmes at national and local levels .

( ... ) The ORG expresses its serious concern at the high increase in number of children left without parental care and regrets that its previous recommendations , to ORG , to develop a comprehensive strategy to assist vulnerable families , has not been followed ” .

The basic principles , listed in the annex to ORG ( CARDINAL of ORG on the rights of children living in residential institutions , adopted on DATE , include , among others :

« ( ... ) The family is the natural environment for the growth and well - being of the child and the parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child ;

– preventive measures of support for children and families in accordance with their special needs should be provided as far as possible ;

– the placement of a child should remain the exception and have as the primary objective the best interests of the child ( ... ) ;

– the decision taken about the placement of a child and the placement itself should not be subject to discrimination on the basis of ... disability ... or any other status of ... his or her parents ( ... ) . ORG

According to ORG on policy to support positive parenting , adopted on DATE , policies and measures in the field of support for parenting should take into account the importance of a sufficient standard of living to engage in positive parenting . Governments should also ensure that children and parents have access to an appropriate level and diversity of resources ( material , psychological , social and cultural ) . In the best interests of the child , the rights of parents , such as entitlement to appropriate support from public authorities in fulfilling their parental functions , must also be given prominence . Particular attention should be paid to difficult social and economic circumstances , which require more specific support . It is also essential to supplement general policies with a more targeted approach .


András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

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

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

On DATE the applicant , at the material time a member and activist of ORG ) , a registered left - wing political party , was convicted by ORG under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of the offence of having worn a totalitarian symbol in public . The court observed that the applicant had worn a CARDINAL - pointed red star and a sickle - and - hammer logo on several occasions of public appearance . The court refrained from imposing a sentence for DATE . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .

On DATE ORG adopted a judgment in a case introduced by another individual on account of a conviction similar in nature ( PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . The ORG held that prosecution for having worn a red star amounted to a violation of that applicant ’s freedom of expression enshrined in LAW . In pursuit of this judgment , on DATE ORG review bench acquitted the defendant in that case holding that his incriminated act no longer represented danger to society .

Act no . DATE on LAW provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A criminal offence is an act perpetrated intentionally or DATE if the law also punishes negligent perpetration – by negligence , which represents a danger for society and for which the law orders the infliction of punishment .

( CARDINAL ) An activity or omission shall be an act dangerous to society if it violates or endangers the constitutional , social or economic order of GPE , or the person or rights of citizens . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Any person who ( a ) disseminates , ( b ) uses in public or ( c ) exhibits a swastika , an ORG - badge , an arrow - cross , a symbol of the sickle - and - hammer or a CARDINAL - pointed red star , or a symbol depicting any of them , commits an offence – unless a more serious crime has been committed – and shall be sentenced to a fine .

( CARDINAL ) The conduct prescribed under paragraph ( CARDINAL ) is not punishable if it is done for the purposes of education , science , art or in order to provide information about history or contemporary events .

( CARDINAL ) PERSON ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) do not apply to the insignia of GPE which are in force . ”

Act No . ORG of DATE on Criminal Procedure provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) [ ... R]eview proceedings may be initiated ... if ... ( a ) a person ... was convicted ... in breach of the substantive provisions of criminal law ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The rules of third - instance proceedings ( LAW ) shall be applicable to the conduct of the review proceedings ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The third - instance court may reverse the second - instance court ’s judgment and adopt a lawful decision if the second - instance court gave its judgment in breach of the [ substantive ] provisions of criminal law ... provided that the findings of fact are well - founded or their deficiency could be rectified before the third - instance court . ”

In case no . PERSON . II.CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( judgment of DATE ) which concerned the prosecution of a Mr F. for having displayed a red star , ORG examined in detail whether or not PERSON conduct represented any danger to society DATE an element inherent in the notion of a crime within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see above ) DATE and this in particular in the face of the PERSON judgment cited above .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Stanislav Shevchuk;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in salary arrears and other sums , to be paid by the ORG company GPE girnichomontazhne upravlinnya .

The judgment became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted .

On DATE ORG returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant since there was a tax lien over the company ’s property and it was therefore not possible to attach it . The applicant did not challenge this decision before the domestic courts ; nor did he relodge the writ of execution with ORG .

The judgment in the applicant ’s favour remains unenforced .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


ORG Mr PERSON lives in GPE and is a journalist by profession . At the material time he was working as editor - in - chief of a news agency run by a commercial company , ORG , of which he was a founder member and manager . This company filed a petition in bankruptcy ( ORG ) on DATE . A new company , ORG ( " the ddp " ) , was created subsequently , and PERSON became its sole director ( PERSON ) and editor - in - chief on CARDINAL DATE .

ORG Shortly afterwards , he instituted CARDINAL different sets of proceedings . In the first ( A ) he sought to challenge his dismissal and in the second ( B ) he claimed the right to reply to a press release issued by his employer . At almost the same time , he became involved in a third set of proceedings ( C ) brought against him under LAW of DATE ( PERSON gegen den unlauteren PERSON - " LAW " ) .

ORG For reasons connected with the applicant ’s financial management , the ddp ’s supervisory board ( PERSON ) dismissed him without notice from all his duties on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE it sent him another letter of dismissal on the ground that he had allegedly communicated inside information to third persons . PERSON challenged the validity of the latter dismissal , which was renewed on DATE . A further dismissal letter was sent to him on DATE , after he had distributed a circular letter and newspaper cuttings among fellow professionals on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . A final dismissal notice , based on new grounds , was sent to him on DATE .

ORG At the end of legal proceedings instituted by the applicant , ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) held on DATE that he had been validly dismissed on DATE .

According to the court , the distribution of the circular and cuttings was to be regarded as such a serious breach of PERSON duty of loyalty that it was not possible for the employer to continue his contract , nor could it reasonably be expected . By sending press articles to a large number of influential professionals and endorsing in the circular their objectively unfavourable statements about the ddp ’s competence and business situation , PERSON had knowingly run the risk of causing the company considerable prejudice ; such behaviour on the part of a leading employee was unacceptable and therefore not covered by the constitutional right to freedom of expression .

Furthermore , it could not be inferred from the circular that its main aim was to defend the applicant ’s reputation and honour ; it contained neither any reference to the ddp ’s allegations nor any arguments in PERSON defence . The circular ’s last paragraph clearly showed that the sole purpose of the mailing had been to disseminate adverse comments on the applicant ’s former employer and to establish contact with the addressees .

Mr Jacubowski challenged this judgment in ORG ( ORG ) and ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) , but on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively those courts declined to accept for adjudication his applications on the ground that they had no prospects of success .

ORG In the meantime , on DATE , the agency had published a press release concerning its own reorganisation . In this it also criticised the applicant ’s management in the following terms :

" ... after the private limited company ... had filed a petition in bankruptcy on DATE , the public limited company NORP - again under the management of PERSON - started up on DATE with a capital of CARDINAL DM . ORG unchanged business methods and his inappropriate behaviour to clients , together with the lack of any efficient , reliable editorial management meant that no advantage was taken of the opportunity to make a fresh start , and indeed they led to a loss of clients . Until DATE PERSON misled the supervisory board about vital aspects of the developments . In particular , liabilities incurred in the private company ’s period of existence were transferred to the public company , and this put the NORP agency into financial difficulties again . Only the timely intervention of the former finance and accounting director , PERSON , the current director , prevented more serious harm being done , so that DATE NORP is once again on a sound financial footing . On CARDINAL July - the date of the general meeting - Jacubowski was dismissed without notice on account of his business incompetence ... PERSON was appointed sole director . "

ORG On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested the ddp to publish his reply ( PERSON ) to the press release , but without success . He then sought an interim injunction ( einstweilige GPE ) from ORG ( Landgericht ) , but this was refused on DATE , on the ground that the proposed reply was not limited to answering the allegations of fact in the press release ( gegenteilige Tatsachenbehauptung ) but gave a completely new version of the sequence of events ( PERSON ) , which had not been an issue in the ddp ’s press release .

On DATE ORG reversed ORG judgment and ordered the agency to accede to PERSON request , which it did DATE . In the reply then published the applicant answered in detail all the main accusations contained in the ddp ’s press release .

ORG In the meantime , on DATE , PERSON had sent CARDINAL articles from newspapers with large circulations to CARDINAL newspaper publishers and newspaper , radio and television journalists who , as clients of the ddp , had received the press release of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . These articles gave critical accounts of his dismissal , the circumstances surrounding it and the ddp ’s activities in general . They reported in particular that the ddp ’s financial position had worsened again since the bankruptcy in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that some of its clients were preparing to dispense with its services , mainly because of their poor standard and the lack of certain technical facilities .

He had appended a circular letter that read as follows :

" The enclosed selection - which is inevitably incomplete - of articles on the PERSON v. NORP case will undoubtedly throw light on certain matters that are still obscure , even though you may already be familiar with CARDINAL or other of the accounts of the facts . Some of the facts are admittedly reported inaccurately , but they scarcely alter the picture as a whole . The pending court proceedings that members of NORP ’s staff affected by current developments at the agency and I have brought will ensure that all the details finally become clear .

I should be glad to be able to meet you in person before too long , in order to discuss not only the past but also future developments in the NORP ‘ news ORG . I will ask for an appointment in due course . "

ORG Shortly afterwards , on DATE , the applicant set up a " public - relations " agency .

ORG In the meantime the PERSON company , which had acquired PERCENT of the ddp ’s capital , had applied for a restraining injunction ( Unterlassung ) against PERSON . On DATE ORG refused the application on the ground that PERSON had no legal interest ( rechtliches ORG ) .

ORG On DATE , on an appeal by PERSON , joined ( Eintritt in den LOC ) by the agency , ORG refused to grant an injunction prohibiting the applicant from systematically criticising the ddp but ordered that he should desist from any further such mailings , on pain of a fine ; it went on to hold that he would have to " compensate the [ E. company ] for all the damage that the acts [ in question ] ha[d ] caused and [ would ] cause the [ ddp ] " . The judgment was based on section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , which provides : " Any person who , in the course of business commits , for purposes of competition , acts contrary to accepted moral standards may be enjoined from further engaging in those acts and held liable for damages . "

The court held that in his circular the respondent had repeated in his own name the allegations made in the attached articles . Admittedly , he had sought to correct assertions made about him in the press release that were possibly false but he had acted above all for purposes of competition in the course of business .

The court said , inter alia :

" ... the respondent sent his circular of DATE for purposes of competition in the course of business .

An action is said to be for purposes of competition where it is on the face of it apt to promote CARDINAL person ’s sales to the detriment of another ’s and where it is carried out with a corresponding intention , although that intention need not be the only or the essential motive for the action ( settled case - law , see ORG in GPE DATE , p. CARDINAL - Constanze I ; ORG , GPE , CARDINALth edition , intro . to LAW , marginal notes CARDINAL et seq . , with further references ) .

Remarks which , according to the witness ORG , the respondent made several times show that even before sending out the circular the latter had planned to set up his own news agency after he left the employ of the [ ddp ] . The distribution of the circular referring to the enclosed adverse newspaper reports on , inter alia , the [ ddp ] ’s activities as a news agency to current clients of the [ ddp ] and/or potential clients of both the [ ddp ] and the news agency that the respondent proposed to set up was apt to enhance the competitive position of the respondent ’s company and impair that of the [ ddp ] . Admittedly , the respondent ’s company did not then exist . However , for it to be held that there is a competitive relationship , it is sufficient that traders have , or at least will in the future have , the same potential clientele . This was the case as regards the respondent ’s company and the [ ddp ] ...

Behind the respondent ’s conduct there was furthermore a ... competitive intention .

Experience shows that the fact that activities are objectively apt to enhance one ’s own competitive position at the expense of another ’s is not the only basis for presuming a competitive intention ...

In the present case such an intention is also apparent from the other facts that emerged during the proceedings . According to what he told the witness ORG , the respondent had already been planning for a long time to set up his own agency in the event of his leaving the [ ddp ] ’s service . In DATE the [ ddp ] had removed him from the post of director and in DATE [ it ] had terminated his contract of employment . The circular and newspaper cuttings were sent out DATE to selected addressees , including - and this is not disputed - important clients of the [ ddp ] . DATE the respondent ’s new agency was set up . This chronological sequence of events is a further indication of the respondent ’s intention to lower the [ ddp ] in the esteem of potential clients of both parties and thereby make it easier for his own agency to gain a foothold in the market in preparation for competition with the [ ddp ] .

The last paragraph of the circular likewise makes the competitive intention clear . It shows that the respondent intended to provoke discussion not only with a view to correcting assertions concerning himself that were possibly false , but also , at the very least , in order to promote his future activities as a competitor of the [ ddp ] . It is not apparent what else the respondent could have meant when he wrote that he wished to discuss ‘ not only the past but also future developments in the NORP " news market " ‘ . By taking up these unfavourable comments on the [ ddp ] and distributing them anew as his own statements and assessments , he unnecessarily handicapped the [ ddp ] as a competitor . In this connection it does not matter whether the unfavourable factual statements concerning the [ ddp ] ’s activities were accurate and whether they justified the unfavourable assessments accompanying them . This is because even true statements may only be used to disparage a competitor where the person making them has sufficient reason to link his own competitive position with disparagement of the competitor and provided that the criticism does not in nature or degree exceed what is necessary ( ORG in GPE DATE , pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL - Fälschung ) . It does not appear that there was any such reason to disparage the [ ddp ] by taking up the unfavourable comments on its activities in the ORG article . "

In short , PERSON had needlessly handicapped ( behinderte unnötig ) a competitor and accordingly infringed section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act .

ORG On DATE ORG declined to accept for adjudication an appeal on points of law ( Revision ) by the applicant on the ground that it had no prospects of success .

ORG Thereupon PERSON applied to ORG , complaining in particular of an infringement of freedom of expression ( Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL , first sentence , of LAW ) . On DATE ORG declined to accept the complaint for adjudication on the ground that it was unfounded .

It noted , firstly , that the prohibition in issue related solely to the applicant ’s chosen method of circulating his information . The information was , moreover , of a business nature , but this did not mean that it ceased to be an opinion whose expression was protected by LAW CARDINAL , first sentence , of LAW . This provision therefore had to be weighed against section CARDINAL of LAW , on which the prohibition had been founded .

The court went on :

" In order for it to be determined how [ freedom of expression and fair competition ] are to be related to each other in the case of damaging comment by a competitor , the following points are decisive , having regard to earlier decisions of ORG in cases involving a call for a boycott ( see ORG [ vol . ] CARDINAL , CARDINAL at CARDINAL et seq . , with further references ) .

In the first place , the motives of the person concerned and , linked to them , the aim and purpose of the comment are crucial . If the comment is motivated not by personal interests of an economic nature , but by concern for the political , economic , social or cultural interests of the community , if it serves to influence public opinion , the appeal will probably qualify for the protection of Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW , even if private and , more particularly , economic interests are adversely affected as a result . Conversely , the importance of protecting the latter interests is the greater , the less the comment is a contribution to public debate on a major issue of public concern and the more it is immediately directed against those interests in the course of business and in pursuit of a self - serving goal ( see ORG [ vol . ] CARDINAL , CARDINAL at CARDINAL ) such as improving one ’s own competitive position ...

In the light of these facts , the distribution of the applicant ’s circular can hardly be regarded as an attempt to influence public opinion . Rather it was designed almost exclusively to promote his private business interests and to secure or improve his competitive position in the news market .

It follows ... that the prejudice caused to the complainants by the distribution of the circular was disproportionate to the applicant ’s aim , stated in it , of clarifying his relationship with the ddp and ‘ current developments at the agency’ . In principle , freedom of expression takes precedence over rights ( Rechtsgüter ) protected by ordinary laws in so far as the statement is part of the ongoing discussion of questions of public importance which is absolutely fundamental to a free democratic system . This condition is not satisfied where the statement is made to ensure that certain business interests prevail over others in the context of business competition . The fact that an interest is made to prevail by means which are in principle protected under LAW para . CARDINAL of LAW can not therefore justify subordinating to it the other interest , which is in turn entitled to the protection of an ordinary law that places restrictions on freedom of expression , in this case LAW ( see ORG [ vol . ] CARDINAL , CARDINAL at CARDINAL et seq . ) . It follows that the finding by ORG that the applicant ’s distribution of the circular was contrary to accepted moral standards is not incompatible with Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW . "

ORG added that the fact that the impugned circular followed a press release directed against him which had been issued by the ddp ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) did not invalidate this conclusion , since in order to claim the protection of the LAW , his response would have had to be intended to influence public opinion , which it was not .

ORG On DATE ORG dismissed a claim for damages brought by the ddp in reliance on ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It held that the ddp had insufficiently substantiated its claim and had failed to prove any causal link between the alleged damage and the distribution of PERSON circular .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

On DATE the applicants ' house in PERSON was blown up by unknown perpetrators .

On DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking damages for their destroyed property from the ORG .

On DATE ORG introduced an amendment to LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation . The new legislation was to be enacted within DATE .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation .

On DATE ORG introduced the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations ( “ the DATE LAW ” ) .

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings .

On DATE the court dismissed the applicants ' claim finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter .

On DATE the applicants appealed against the above decision . It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the second instance court .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima – Official Gazette , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) provided as follows :

“ Liability for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction of another 's property , when it results from acts of violence or terror or from public demonstrations or manifestations , lies with the ... authority whose officers were under a duty , according to the laws in force , to prevent such loss . ”

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o izmjeni PERSON o obveznim odnosima – Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; “ the DATE LAW ) reads as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL of LAW ( the Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) shall be repealed . ”

“ Proceedings for damages instituted under LAW shall be stayed .

The proceedings referred to in sub - section CARDINAL of this section shall be resumed after the enactment of special legislation governing liability for damage resulting from terrorist acts . ”

The relevant part of CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; “ LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted in cases when a competent court has not decided within a reasonable time a claim concerning the applicant 's rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him ...

( CARDINAL ) If the constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this Section is accepted , the ORG shall determine a time - limit within which a competent court shall decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision under paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW , the Constitutional Court shall fix appropriate compensation for the applicant in respect of the violation found concerning his constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid from the ORG budget within a term of DATE from the date when the party lodged a request for its payment . ”

DATE ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads as follows :

“ In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

The Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations ( Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija – Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; “ the DATE LAW ” ) provides that all compensation for damage to property resulting from terrorist acts is to be sought under LAW . LAW provides that all proceedings stayed pursuant to LAW are to be resumed .

LAW ( Zakon o obnovi – Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provides that the ORG shall grant reconstruction assistance to the owners of property damaged during the war . Any requests in this respect are to be filed with the competent administrative authority .

On DATE the Constitutional Court gave a decision no . U - III-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in the case of PERSON N. , who had filed a constitutional complaint under LAW , in connection with LAW § CARDINAL of the LAW . He complained about the length of the proceedings and lack of access to a court because his action had been stayed , due to legislative action , before the domestic courts over a long period of time . In this decision , ORG established that there had been a violation of the constitutional rights to a trial within a reasonable time and to access to court , ordered the domestic court to render a decision in Mr ORG 's case within DATE , and awarded him compensation .


The applicant , ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before ORG , practising in GPE .

The applicant was born on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant was assaulted by her mother ’s boyfriend . She suffered severe injury – left hemiplegia , blindness and severe mental impairment . She required full time care provided by her grandparents who were appointed her legal guardians .

On DATE , the applicant ’s grandparents made an application on her behalf to ORG ( " CICA " ) . They instructed solicitors to present her claims to the ORG . The solicitors obtained inter alia medical reports and reports as to her future needs ( care , accommodation , transport , holiday etc ) . The fees exceeded ORG CARDINAL . Pursuant to ORG , costs of representation in pursuing a claim were not recoverable ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

By letter dated DATE , ORG informed the applicant that they were minded to make an interim award of GBP CARDINAL . The applicant ’s solicitors responded by insisting that they issue a final award .

By letter dated DATE , ORG informed the applicant that they had made a final award of GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL . They rejected the large claim for future costs once she became an adult on the basis that these would be largely met by the local authority .

In DATE , ORG informed the applicant that they had reviewed the award and would increase it to the statutory maximum of GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The applicant ’s solicitors and ORG have been in subsequent negotiation concerning the type of trust that should be set up to administer the fund . Apparently the money has yet to be transferred .

Meanwhile , in DATE an action was taken on her behalf challenging the compatibility of paragraph CARDINAL of the Scheme with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL .

On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims . Mr ORG noted :

" It has never been in doubt that her claim is well - founded and can not be subject to any reduction on the grounds of her conduct or character . The only issue for the ORG to decide has been the amount of compensation which should be awarded to her . On any view it was always going to be substantial . "

He found that the obligation for an applicant to make out his case did not require him to obtain at his own expense all the professional reports necessary to prove the nature and extent of his injuries and their impact upon his life and the cost of alleviating it . Once he had demonstrated significant injury and that cost would be incurred in alleviating it , the burden of investigating both elements fell on the ORG . Under paragraph CARDINAL , the ORG were , however , under no obligation to reimburse costs of representation , including drafting and submitting the application , advising on the application , negotiating with the ORG and responding to the ORG ’s queries . Although a well - founded claim to compensation under the ORG was acknowledged by all parties to be a " civil right " under LAW , he did not consider that the requirement under the scheme for applicants , who chose to obtain legal representation to assist in their claims , to bear those costs either restricted their ability to apply to the ORG or deprived them of a fair determination of their claim . He rejected the claim of the discriminatory effect on the applicant ’s pecuniary rights due to her position as a severely handicapped child , considering that the applicant was in the same situation as anyone with a complex claim who would be likely to want to seek some professional legal advice . Further the applicant ’s grandparents could make any decisions which an adult could make .

On DATE , after a hearing , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . It noted that meanwhile the ORG had accepted that they should pay for various medical and expert reports and commented strongly on the delay in making a final award , where the severity of her injuries plainly fell in the highest tariff category . It seemed to have been principally because of the ORG ’s dilatoriness that the applicant ’s solicitors became engaged in establishing each element of her claim and bespoke specialists’ reports and counsel ’s advice in order to do so .

Lord Justice PERSON noted that the parties agreed that Article CARDINAL applied to the scheme but considered that as the scheme had operated in this case no violation of the applicant ’s rights arose :

" ... ought the Scheme , in order to comply with C. ’s LAW right to a fair hearing provide for the reimbursement of her solicitor ’s full bill of costs ? This now exceeds GBP CARDINAL ; it covers a wide range of inquiries and the fees of leading and junior counsel . C. has never faced the prospect of being unable to pay these costs , and because of the willingness of her solicitors to defer payment her lack of funds and that of her grandparents has not impeded her access to the ORG . I am less impressed by PERSON argument ( though it found favour with ORG ) that , so long as she has competent adults to act for her , C. is at no disadvantage at all . Given the unnecessarily complex course taken by the ORG , the grandparents were as much in need of advice and representation as C. was .

But C. ’s situation , even so , is not analogous with PERSON , nor with that of an impecunious claimant needing to establish a primary entitlement . Her situation is that of a person whose right of access to the ORG is recognised and effective ( though impeded by prevarication ) but whose carers , very reasonably , want to ensure that the award she obtains is as full as it should be . To that end they have committed a part of the eventual fund to obtaining representation . It is the intent of the Scheme that where this happens it is not to be at the ORG ’s expense . That the Scheme could have provided otherwise is clear ; but it does not follow that it was bound to provide otherwise in order to give effect to FAC right ...

In my judgment it has not been shown that the Scheme invades C. ’s human rights in this regard . It diminishes her award by the cost of her representation ; but while many people would regard this as unfair , it does not deprive her of the possibility of a fair hearing within the meaning of LAW ... "

On DATE , written confirmation was received that ORG refused leave to appeal finding no arguable point of law of general public importance .

Compensation for persons who suffered criminal injuries was provided for originally by an exercise of ORG . The modern statutory scheme was set up under LAW DATE .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , it is provided that :

“ The Secretary of ORG shall make arrangements for the payment of compensation to , or in respect of , persons who have sustained one or more criminal injuries . ”

At the relevant time , the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme DATE laid out the applicable rules .

Paragraph CARDINAL :

" It will be for the applicant to make out his case ... Where an applicant is represented , the costs of representation will not be met by the ORG . "

Paragraph CARDINAL :

“ Where a claims officer considers that an examination of the injury is required before a decision can be reached , the ORG will make arrangements for such an examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner . Reasonable expenses incurred by the applicant in that connection will be met by the ORG . ”

Section CARDINAL ) provides :

“ It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right . ”

Section CARDINAL provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In relation to any act ( or proposed act ) of a public authority which the court finds is ( or would be ) unlawful , it may grant such relief or remedy or make such order , within its powers , as it considers just and appropriate .

( CARDINAL ) But damages may be awarded only by a court which has power to award damages , or to order the payment of compensation , in civil proceedings . ”


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . In DATE and DATE he and another person contracted to guarantee a bank loan granted to N. As ORG was eventually unable to meet the reimbursement conditions , the applicant and his co - guarantor each paid the bank CARDINAL NORP markkas ( FIM ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , excluding interest , in DATE .

NORP In DATE N. applied for a debt adjustment in accordance with the DATE LAW ( laki yksityishenkilön velkajärjestelystä , lag om skuldsanering för privatpersoner CARDINAL – “ the DATE Act ” ) and proposed a payment schedule for the court ’s approval . The applicant opposed the request , arguing that such an adjustment could lead to an unjustified deprivation of his property , consisting of his claim against N. The applicant argued that ORG was young and healthy and could be expected to be able to reimburse his debts to the guarantors in due course . In the alternative , the applicant requested that the adjustment of ORG ’s debts be postponed .

On DATE , after ORG had found employment , ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) of PERSON granted him a debt adjustment and adopted a payment schedule which was to take effect on DATE and remain in force for DATE . The applicant ’s claim against ORG was reduced to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . ORG considered that ORG ’s solvency had been significantly weakened on account of his previous unemployment and unsuccessful business activities . Given that ORG was already able to reimburse ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) per month to his creditors at the time of the court ’s examination , it was not possible under LAW to postpone the entry into force of the payment schedule . ORG gave the following reasons :

“ ... With reference to PERSON submission , ORG notes that under ORG it is possible to reduce the amount of a claim and even to write a claim off . Considering that a guarantee always involves a risk as to the possible obligation to pay the creditor and the possibility of recourse against the principal debtor , ORG finds that the claim in question can not be considered as a possession that would enjoy inviolable protection under LAW . ... ”

Among DATE ’s CARDINAL other creditors was F. bank , with a claim amounting to ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) , of which ORG retained ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) as part of his payment schedule .

The applicant appealed , contending that the almost total extinction of his claim against ORG violated his property rights under the Convention . No legislation on debt adjustment had existed at the time when the applicant had contracted to guarantee ORG ’s debts . Furthermore , the extreme step of writing off his claim discriminated against him as a private creditor who , unlike creditor banks , would receive no compensation from the ORG .

On DATE ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) upheld ORG decision and its reasoning . The applicant was refused leave to appeal to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) on DATE .

The DATE Act was enacted during a recession in the NORP economy , one of its purposes being to reduce the high volume of unpaid debts owing to banks . The banks received substantial subsidies from the ORG in compensation . Under LAW , a court may write off debts on condition that the debtor agrees to a payment schedule in favour of the creditors determined by the court ( section CARDINAL ) . The court assesses the income needed to cover the debtor ’s essential living expenses and to meet any obligation to pay allowances ( sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The excess income is to be used to pay off the creditors during a fixed period in amounts determined by the court ( section CARDINAL ) .

If the debtor fails to comply with the payment schedule or contracts a new debt , the schedule may be annulled , thereby enabling all creditors to claim payment as if no debt adjustment had been granted ( section DATE ) . If the debtor ’s ability to pay or other conditions change significantly while the reimbursement scheme is in force , the debtor must inform the creditors within DATE ( section CARDINAL ) . Both the debtor and the creditors may seek to have the payment schedule amended , extended or annulled while it remains in force or , in certain circumstances , within DATE from the adoption of the schedule ( sections CARDINAL and DATE ) . If the payment schedule is amended in favour of the creditors , it may be extended by a period corresponding to the period during which the debtor ’s ability to pay had improved ( section DATE ) .

The court may hear submissions from CARDINAL or several creditors , guarantors and co - debtors before deciding on the request for debt adjustment ( section CARDINAL ) . An appeal lies to the relevant appellate court , unless it is specifically prohibited or concerns a procedural matter ( section CARDINAL ) .

At the material time , the court could obtain , at the request of a creditor , the relevant information on the possible existence of circumstances which could lead to the refusal of an application for debt adjustment . Since DATE the court can also obtain this information of its own motion .

In its parliamentary bill ( no . DATE ) , the government noted that an insolvent private individual seldom had enough possessions to repay a creditor , as the bankruptcy costs had priority . Neither could a declaration of bankruptcy eliminate a natural person ’s future responsibility for his or her debts . Allowing an adjustment of the overall debts and fixing a payment schedule could help the debtor meet his or her future financial obligations , provided he or she complied with that schedule . Such assistance would also reduce the overall cost to society . The courts should seek to adjust a debt in the manner least detrimental to the creditor and only to the extent that such an adjustment was necessary to remedy the debtor ’s financial situation . Since underlying contractual terms should be interfered with as little as possible , the partial or total extinction of a claim should be considered as a very last resort . The possibility of ordering a payment schedule to remain in force for DATE would enable the creditors to receive at least partial satisfaction . It was noted that somewhat similar legislation for debt adjustment had been , or was being , enacted in countries such as GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .

In DATE LAW was amended , inter alia , so as to tighten further the conditions for granting a debt adjustment ( section CARDINAL and section CARDINAL ) . A further amendment provided for the possibility of extending the payment schedule for a further DATE , for exceptional reasons and provided the creditor was also a private individual ( section CARDINALa ) . These amendments were not applicable to the applicant ’s case .

The Netherlands Government agreed with the respondent Government ’s views and drew attention to ORG ( Wet schuldsanering natuurlijke personen ) which came into force in the GPE in DATE and was similar to the NORP legislation .

In their view , declaring that the full or partial repayment of debts was no longer enforceable ipso jure at the end of a debt - repayment procedure did not contravene LAW No . CARDINAL . Both the NORP and GPE laws on debt adjustment served the public interest as they were aimed at preventing personal bankruptcy . As a result of bankruptcy , people were frequently discouraged from setting up an income - generating activity , since by so doing they would face claims from old creditors . Bankruptcies also placed a heavy burden on society and creditors did not benefit from having to pursue bankrupt debtors for DATE on end . Debt - adjustment procedures sought to satisfy all parties concerned by striking a proper balance between their respective interests . This complied with the letter and spirit of LAW No . CARDINAL .

They noted , finally , that a guarantor voluntarily took the risk that not all the funds he or she might have to pay to a creditor could be recovered from the debtor . The ORG did not afford protection against such a risk .

ORG joined the respondent Government in arguing that the debt adjustment provided for in the respective States’ legislation did not contravene the rights which LAW No . CARDINAL afforded to creditors .

LAW of DATE ( LAW relating to Voluntary and Compulsory Debt Settlement for Private Individuals – gjeldsordningsloven ) contained provisions similar to those found in the NORP legislation . LAW served vital societal goals and struck a balance between competing interests . The primary purpose of the LAW was to rehabilitate individuals with serious and permanent debt problems by affording them an opportunity to regain control over their financial affairs , in the absence of which they easily became dependent on the social welfare system on a permanent basis . In addition , the LAW was intended to ensure that debtors would fulfil their obligations as far as possible and that the distribution of a debtor ’s assets would be organised properly . The position of creditors was not to be weakened any more than strictly necessarily .

The NORP Government likewise agreed with the arguments of the respondent Government and referred to GPE ( skuldsaneringslagen ) of DATE . This legislation essentially corresponded to the NORP legislation and was of vital importance to society as it sought to rehabilitate individuals with very large debts , affording them a chance to lead a decent life . The legislation applied to residents in a “ qualified ” state of insolvency who appeared unable to pay their debts within the foreseeable future . In the longer term , severe insolvency not only created suffering for the individual concerned but also resulted in a loss of production , an increased need for care and treatment , and an expansion of the grey sector of the economy .

The debt - adjustment legislation also had a preventive effect , as it lessened the interest of credit institutions and others in lending money without verifying the prospective debtor ’s solvency . This in turn reduced the risk of individuals facing a serious debt burden .

The rehabilitating purpose of the legislation was weighed against the individual LOC interest in maintaining their claims . Hence a further purpose of the NORP legislation was to protect the creditors as a group , since the debtor would be paying at least part of his or her debt to each of them . Creditors were thus likely to receive a better dividend on their claims than would otherwise have been the case .

By DATE , CARDINAL applications had been lodged and CARDINAL persons had been granted a debt adjustment in GPE .

When the NORP legislation was being considered ( Government Bill CARDINAL/CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , it was noted that debt adjustment would not amount to a deprivation of property , even though it would limit the creditor ’s possibility of asserting a claim or even extinguish it . A claim against a debtor in a “ qualified ” state of insolvency would largely be of a merely formal nature , as the creditor could hardly expect to receive any payment . Through debt adjustment , the creditor could obtain payment of at least part of the claim ’s nominal value . Against this background , and bearing in mind the significant general interest in favour of debt adjustment , ORG concluded at the time of enacting LAW that a scheme to that effect would not contravene LAW No . CARDINAL .

ORG considered that even if LAW No . CARDINAL came into play , any interference with the rights of creditors was justified as regards a bankruptcy system involving the cancellation of debts in whole or in part . Cancellation of debts was a common feature of many bankruptcy schemes in the western world , including that of GPE . Debtors could get into financial difficulties for reasons which were not of their own making . Bankruptcy schemes were aimed at rehabilitating the debtors , both financially and socially . The absence of these schemes could have adverse social consequences , as the very existence of debts might prevent an individual from carrying on certain activities . If debtors who had failed in business could not be discharged from their debts , this could act as a deterrent to entrepreneurship and responsible risk - taking .

Creditors such as the applicant could protect their position by not dealing with a particular debtor ; by inquiring into the debtor ’s financial position ; by asking for a security ; by taking out an insurance policy ; or by obtaining a guarantee from CARDINAL party . At any rate , creditors were presumed to be acting in the knowledge of insolvency law and its consequences .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska

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

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and are currently in GPE .

The applicants arrived in GPE in DATE and applied for asylum and residence permits . Before ORG ( Migrationsverket ) they essentially submitted the following . The first applicant had worked as a teacher . In DATE the first applicant , her sister and her adopted daughter had been raped in her home by CARDINAL unknown men and at the same time a hand grenade had been thrown at her husband , P. The incident had taken place DATE after the couple had started enquiring of the authorities how it was that a man , PERSON , who had been convicted of abusing their daughter PERSON ( the third applicant ) in DATE , had been released before serving his entire sentence . The authorities had told them to stop asking questions about the matter and shortly thereafter PERSON had started receiving telephone threats to the effect that the family would be hurt if they did not stop asking about PERSON The first applicant and PERSON had also suspected that PERSON ’s phone was tapped . The first applicant suspected that PERSON had been released early from prison in order to spy on the ORG ( Forces ORG , at the time a rebel group ) for the ORG , for which reason the authorities would want to cover up his release by silencing the first applicant and her family . The first applicant added that PERSON and their adopted daughter had left GPE in DATE due to continued threats and were currently in GPE . The applicants were convinced that , if returned to GPE , they would be killed by those who had threatened them . Moreover , the first applicant was worried about how she would be able to protect PERSON ( the sixth applicant ) from it becoming known that she might be the result of the rape . The applicants submitted their passports as well as CARDINAL medical certificates ; CARDINAL issued on DATE which stated that the third applicant had been receiving care following sexual abuse and the other issued on DATE which stated that the first applicant , her sister and adopted daughter had received care following a rape .

On DATE ORG rejected the application . It did not question that the first applicant , her sister and adopted daughter had been the victims of rape in DATE . However , it found it unsubstantiated that men from the governing party had been responsible for the rapes and the threats against the family . It also considered that it was merely speculation by the first applicant that P. ’s telephone had been tapped or that PERSON had been released early to work as a spy for the Government , as she had presented nothing to show that this was actually the case . In the ORG ’s view , having regard to what the first applicant had said during the interviews , it rather appeared as if the rapes were acts of revenge on the part of PERSON , carried out by private persons connected to PERSON Here the ORG noted that the first applicant had stated that they had reported the rapes in DATE to the police and that the police had commenced an investigation . It further observed that although sexual violence was a problem in GPE , the number of rapes had decreased during DATE while there was an increase in reports to the police concerning rape . Moreover , PERSON had been prosecuted and convicted of the abuse of the third applicant , which indicated that the NORP authorities were willing and able to deal with the problem . Consequently , the ORG concluded that the applicants were not in need of protection in GPE . ORG also took into account that the case included CARDINAL minor children , of whom the sixth applicant had been born prematurely in GPE . However , she was developing well and there was no indication that there would be problems for her in the future due to the uncertainty as to the identity of her father . In conclusion , ORG considered that there were no exceptional reasons to let the applicants remain in GPE .

The applicants appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , relying on the same grounds as previously and adding that the police report concerning the rapes had not led to anything and that the authorities would not be able to protect them from their assailants . The first applicant stressed that the family had had a good life before the attacks and that they would not have left the country if they had not been forced to . From the way her assailants had spoken to her during the attack , she had understood that they were NORP .

On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG rejected the appeal . Like ORG , it first noted that the abuse of the third applicant had been investigated and the assailant tried and convicted . Moreover , the police were investigating the rapes of the first applicant , her sister and adopted daughter . Thus , the PERSON authorities were able and willing to help the applicants . The court further noted that the applicants had remained in GPE for DATE after the attack without being the victims of any further attacks and that P. had remained in their home until DATE . In the court ’s view , the reasons put forward for the attacks and the threats were pure speculation on the part of the first applicant and not substantiated . Hence , the applicants had failed to show that they were in need of protection in GPE . Even having regard to the fact that the case involved children , the court considered that they could not be granted leave to remain in GPE .

CARDINAL lay judge ( out of CARDINAL lay judges and a professional judge ) dissented . She considered that the first applicant had given a credible and coherent account and that she had thereby shown that she would face a real risk of being persecuted or ill - treated due to her gender if returned to GPE . The applicants should therefore be considered as refugees .

Upon further appeal , ORG refused leave to appeal on DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged a new request for residence permits on the basis that there were impediments to the enforcement of their deportation order . They claimed that the first applicant ’s husband had been arrested and taken to the security police , where he had been tortured . ORG rejected the request on DATE . It held that the requirements for examining the request had not been met since , inter alia , the documentation submitted in support of the application consisted of photocopies which had low value as evidence . Moreover , it was not clear from the documents why the first applicant ’s husband had been arrested . The decision was upheld by ORG on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE ORG refused leave to appeal . It should be noted that the applicants have failed to submit these decisions to the ORG .

In DATE the applicants lodged yet another request for residence permits in GPE on the basis that there were impediments to the enforcement of their deportation order . They claimed that the first applicant was unable to care for her children because she was depressed and had been treated for this condition at the psychiatric unit at NORP hospital CARDINAL . The hospital had commenced treating the first applicant with medication and the treatment would continue for DATE . The fourth , fifth and sixth applicants had been placed in a family home by the social services while the second and third applicants remained in the family ’s apartment and took care of themselves . Thus , the applicants requested residence permits , or at least a stay of execution of the deportation order for DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the request as it found that the applicants had invoked no new circumstances of importance and that there were no absolute impediments to the enforcement of the applicants’ deportation order .

In DATE the applicants lodged another new application for residence permits in GPE . The first applicant claimed that she had been threatened by CARDINAL of her assailants by text messages sent to her mobile phone in GPE and she thought he had obtained the number through contacts with NORP in GPE . Moreover , her husband ’s family had repudiated her because she had been raped and had had an illegitimate child as a result . The first applicant further invoked her poor mental health and stated that she had attempted to commit suicide by taking an overdose when the NORP police had tried to deport her and her children at DATE .

The first applicant submitted a medical certificate , dated DATE , by PERSON , psychologist at ORG in GPE , which stated that the psychologist had met the first applicant CARDINAL times and that she had traumas from having been the victim of violence in GPE . The first applicant showed symptoms of ORG ( PTSD ) and depression for which she was taking medication . During DATE she had had a serious crisis reaction after she had been informed that her husband had probably died . She had attempted suicide , for which she had been treated at a closed psychiatric unit for DATE ( in DATE ) . According to the psychologist , the police had fetched the first applicant at her home in GPE in DATE to detain her , awaiting the deportation . However , she had tried to commit suicide in the detention centre by drinking soap mixed with her medication . She had heard voices which had told her that her children had been killed and that she should kill herself . In the psychologist ’s view , the applicant was now suffering from PTSD , depression with psychotic symptoms and acute stress .

On DATE ORG rejected the new request as it found that the applicants had invoked no new circumstances of importance but had only made certain additions and adjustments to their previous claims . Nor did it consider that there were impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order .

On DATE , the applicants’ lawyer submitted a medical certificate and an extract from the first applicant ’s medical records from the Crisis and FAC at ORG , both dated DATE and written by GPE , psychotherapist and docent in psychiatry .

According to the medical certificate , which was based on the medical records , the first applicant was taking antidepressants and sleeping pills . She heard voices which had prompted her to CARDINAL suicide attempts . She fulfilled the criteria for GPE and depression and was in need of treatment . In the doctor ’s view , there were impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order due to the first applicant ’s poor mental health , since being deported might cause her to lose her sense of reality and try to commit suicide again .

ORG considered that this material should be considered as a new request for residence permits and decided to stay the enforcement of the deportation order while it considered the request . Moreover , the ORG found that the information about the first applicant ’s poor mental health was of a certain importance , for which reason it assigned ORG , physician and specialist in psychiatry , to examine the first applicant in order to evaluate her state of health and whether an enforcement of the deportation order would be possible from a medical point of view .

After having consulted the first applicant ’s medical records and examined her , PERSON concluded that her mental health problems did not amount to a serious mental disorder and that there was no impediment to the enforcement of the deportation order from a medical point of view . However , he considered that experienced and competent personnel should be present during the deportation as the first applicant ’s anxiety could escalate and manifest itself through self - destructive behaviour .

On DATE ORG , having regard to Dr ORG ’s evaluation , decided that there were no impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order and that the applicants could not be granted leave to remain in GPE . It also lifted the stay on the deportation order .

The provisions applicable in the present case are laid down in LAW ( Utlänningslagen , GPE ) . The LAW defines , inter alia , the conditions under which an alien can be deported or expelled from GPE as well as the procedures relating to the enforcement of such decisions .

The LAW stipulates that an alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . The term “ refugee ” refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted on grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By “ an alien otherwise in need of protection ” is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

As regards the enforcement of a deportation or expulsion order , account has to be taken of the risk of capital punishment or torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien must not be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW . In addition , an alien must not , in principle , be sent to a country where he or she risks persecution ( LAW , LAW ) .

Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has gained legal force . This is the case where new circumstances give reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that an enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or where there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . If a residence permit can not be granted under these rules , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such a re - examination shall be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and these circumstances could not have been invoked previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not having done so . Should the applicable conditions not be met , ORG shall decide not to grant a re - examination ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

Matters concerning the right of aliens to enter and remain in GPE are dealt with by CARDINAL instances : ORG , ORG and ORG ( LAW , LAW , and LAW , LAW ) .

ORG Human Rights Practices concerning GPE of DATE , dated DATE , sets out , inter alia , the following :

“ GPE is a constitutional republic with an elected government and a population of CARDINAL . From DATE , the country held elections for all public offices , including the first direct presidential elections since DATE . Following the May CARDINAL Communal Council elections , which the international community characterized as generally free and fair , a coalition of CARDINAL opposition parties alleged massive fraud and called for the annulment of the results and new elections . When the parties’ demands were not met , they withdrew their candidates from the subsequent presidential , legislative , and " colline " elections . President PERSON , of the ruling ORG for ORG for ORG ( CNDD - ORG ) party , ran unopposed in the DATE presidential election and was reelected to a second term .

International observers characterized the elections as generally free and fair , although there were reports of political violence leading up to and throughout the DATE election season . Security forces reported to civilian authorities . There were instances in which elements of the security forces acted independently of civilian control .

Women

The law prohibits rape , which is punishable by up to DATE imprisonment ; however , the government did not enforce the law effectively , and rape and other sexual violence against women and girls were problems . The rape of minors , or rape committed by persons who infect their victim with an incurable sexually transmitted disease , is punishable by life imprisonment . Spousal rape is punishable by fines of MONEY ( MONEY ) and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment .

Many women were reluctant to report rape for cultural reasons , fear of reprisal , and the unavailability of medical care . Men often abandoned their wives following acts of rape , and rape victims were ostracized . Police and magistrates regularly required that victims provide food for and pay the costs of incarceration of those they accused of rape . According to a DATE report by ORG ( ORG ) , many victims who sought judicial redress faced an unresponsive judicial system , and courts often refused to act on cases without witnesses . Some victims were reportedly required to pay MONEY ( $ MONEY ) , a large sum for most victims , to obtain a certified medical report . Other problems included judges who did not regard rape as a serious crime and a lack of medical facilities to gather medical evidence . According to women ’s rights organizations , at times families or communities forced victims to withdraw their complaints and negotiate settlements with the perpetrator or his family outside of the formal judicial system . In other cases the victims were forced by their families and local arbiters to marry their attackers . According to the local ORG , PERCENT of persons responsible for rape were arrested , and of PERCENT were prosecuted . As of DATE the ORG recorded CARDINAL rapists arrested . Of the limited number of cases that were investigated , successful prosecutions of rapists were rare .

During DATE ORG began compiling rape statistics through decentralized family development centers ( ORG ) throughout the country . According to ORG reports , there were CARDINAL reported cases of gender - based violence as of DATE . The ORG received reports of CARDINAL cases of rape and domestic violence as of DATE , most of which occurred in GPE and its outlying areas . PERSON , equipped in part by ORG and funded by the ORG , received CARDINAL victims during DATE at its center for rape victims in GPE . Of the victims they assisted , PERCENT were raped by persons they knew , including members of their families , cooks , and neighbors . Local and international NGOs , the government , and the ORG claimed the number of rape victims was likely much higher .

Civil society and religious communities worked to overcome the cultural stigma of rape to help victims reintegrate into families that had rejected them . ORG , the PERSON , the PERSON , and ORG continued to encourage rape victims to press charges and to seek medical care , and international NGOs provided free medical care , mostly in urban areas . The government also raised awareness of the problem through seminars and local initiatives describing the kinds of medical care available ... ”

According to the fifth Report of the Secretary General on ORG in GPE ( document S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , dated DATE , the security situation , although relatively stable during the period under ORG ( DATE to DATE ) , remains a concern . The incidence of criminal activities remained high , with acts of armed robbery , killings and sexual violence . Those acts are largely attributed to the widespread circulation of weapons , land disputes and the socio - economic situation in the country . During the electoral period , there was a massive deployment of security forces throughout the country .

ORG reported in its Report DATE GPE that there continued to be a high incidence of rape and other sexual violence against women and girls during DATE . For example , a centre run by ORG in GPE received an average of CARDINAL rape victims DATE .


CASE OF RADOVICI AND STANESCU v. ROMANIA [Extracts]

Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - financial award (global);Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;John Hedigan;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

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

The facts of the case specific to each application , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

In DATE the applicants brought before ORG an action for recovery of possession in respect of property that had been nationalised by Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Situated in GPE , at DATE PERSON NORP , the property consisted of a house divided into flats and the land on which it was built . At the time , CARDINAL of the flats was occupied by ORG under a tenancy agreement entered into with the ORG in DATE and extended until DATE pursuant to PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE .

In a final judgment of DATE , the court allowed the applicants’ action on the ground that the nationalisation of the property had been illegal and ordered the competent administrative authorities to return the property to them . On that date the applicants began to pay the rates and land taxes levied on their property .

NORP On DATE the applicants notified E.D. of the judgment of DATE through the intermediary of a bailiff and by registered letter with return receipt , in accordance with PERSON no . ORG of DATE . In their notice , the applicants requested PERSON to enter into a tenancy agreement with them , as the new owners of the flat that E.D. occupied , and informed her , for the payment of the rent , of the details of a bank account in their names with ORG .

In DATE , after the entry into force of Government Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE , the applicants visited PERSON , who had declined to respond to their request , with a view to entering into a tenancy agreement with her ; they were faced with a categorical refusal on the part of ORG

On DATE the applicants brought proceedings for the eviction of ORG in ORG . They claimed that ORG was occupying their property without any right of tenancy and had refused to enter into a tenancy agreement with them or to pay them rent in that connection . They further complained that ORG had been breeding pigs in the basement of the house , thus damaging it and rendering it insalubrious .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG granted their application and ordered the eviction of ORG from the disputed property . It found that ORG had not requested an extension of her tenancy of the flat occupied by her and her family , which she had been entitled to do under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and which would have enabled her to enter into an agreement with the new landlords . The court further observed that the applicants had not complied with the obligation under LAW of the GPE to notify the tenant , within DATE from the entry into force of the Ordinance , through the intermediary of a bailiff and by registered letter with return receipt , of the date and place fixed for the signing of a tenancy agreement .

Whilst the court observed that , under LAW of the GPE , failure by a landlord to comply with those formalities resulted in the extension of the previous tenancy until the signing of a new agreement , it nevertheless considered that this provision was not applicable in the present case in view of the exception provided for by LAW whereby there was no extension in the event of a dispute arising from a tenant ’s refusal to enter into a tenancy agreement with the new landlord . The court thus considered that the applicants had adduced evidence of the refusal by ORG to enter into such an agreement . Accordingly , it held that that existing tenancy agreement had not been extended and that ORG was occupying the applicants’ property without any right of tenancy .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG upheld the merits of that judgment on appeal . It considered that the court below had correctly applied LAW ) of the GPE , finding that the existing tenancy agreement had not been extended in view of the refusal by ORG , as proven by the applicants , to enter into a new agreement with them as the new landlords .

In a final judgment of DATE , ORG granted an appeal by the defendant and dismissed the applicants’ action . It found that the applicants had failed to comply , when serving their notice on ORG requesting her to enter into a tenancy agreement , with the conditions and formalities laid down in LAW , and accordingly held that the existing tenancy agreement between ORG and the ORG had been automatically extended pursuant to LAW . The reasoning in the judgment made no mention of the applicability in the present case of LAW d ) of the GPE .

On DATE the applicants brought proceedings against ORG seeking from her the payment of compensation for having deprived them of the enjoyment of the flat in their house that the defendant had occupied since DATE without paying them any rent .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed their application on the ground that the defendant had a tenancy agreement with the ORG , which had been extended automatically as the applicants had failed to comply with the formalities provided for in LAW . That judgment became final on an undetermined date , after being upheld by ORG on an appeal by the applicants .

On DATE the applicants brought eviction proceedings against ORG in ORG on the ground that she had been occupying a flat , of which they were the owners , without paying them any rent , and that her conduct was such that her cohabitation with the other occupants of the building had become impossible . The applicants indicated that , after they had been granted the return of their property by the final judgment of DATE , they had made a number of attempts to enter into a tenancy agreement with the defendant , who had constantly behaved aggressively towards them , but had been unsuccessful . They referred to a number of complaints that they had filed against ORG with law - enforcement agencies . They relied on section CARDINAL(b ) of PERSON no . ORG taken in conjunction with LAW ( i ) of the GPE .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed their action as manifestly ill - founded . It considered that , as it concerned the termination of a tenancy agreement , they should have proved that they had entered into such an agreement with the defendant and that there were circumstances which rendered her cohabitation with the other occupants of the building impossible , but that they had failed to adduce such evidence . The reasoning in this judgment made no reference to the ORG complaint concerning ORG ’s failure to pay rent .

The applicants appealed against that judgment . In a final judgment of DATE , ORG granted their application . It held that ORG had been occupying their property without any right of tenancy , taking into account the fact that the defendant had prevented the connection of the flat to the town gas network and had impeded the use by the other tenants of the common parts of the building , as a result of which her tenancy agreement was not being automatically extended . The court consequently ordered her eviction from the flat that she had been occupying in the applicants’ building .

On DATE the applicants lodged an action for eviction against the members of ORG ’s family who had been living with her in the flat . Their application was granted by a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which ordered the eviction from the flat of the members of ORG ’s family .

On DATE a bailiff from ORG service for the execution of judgments went to the applicants’ flat and restored possession of the LOC to them after breaking the locks on the front door to gain access . The bailiff noted in the record drawn up DATE that serious damage had been done to the flat , in which several window panes were missing or broken .

The applicants never received any rent for the flat which ORG had occupied in their building DATE and DATE .

The relevant provisions of domestic law read as follows at the material time .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL provided :

“ The tenant shall lose the right to occupy the leased accommodation and shall be evicted in the following cases :

( d ) If , in bad faith , he or she has failed for a period of DATE to pay the rent or the service charges .

The tenant ’s eviction , in the cases provided for in this section , shall be ordered by a decision of the courts . ”

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL read as follows :

“ Regardless of the type of landlord , any residential tenancy agreement concerning housing of which the lease is governed by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ... , and which is in progress at the time of the entry into force of the present PERSON , shall automatically be extended for a period of DATE under the same conditions [ as those laid down in PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ] . ”

The relevant sections of PERSON no . ORG read as follows :

“ The lease of residential premises shall be granted under an agreement between landlord and tenant recorded in writing and registered with the local tax authorities ... ”

“ Should the parties fail to agree on the renewal of the tenancy agreement , the tenant shall be required to vacate the premises on the expiry of his or her tenancy . ”

“ Tenancy agreements shall be terminated prior to their expiry date in the following cases :

( b ) at the request of the landlord , should the tenant fail to pay the rent for DATE ;

( i ) when the tenant ’s conduct renders impossible his or her cohabitation with the other occupants of the building or prevents the normal use of the LOC ;

The relevant Articles of the Ordinance read as follows :

“ The term of a residential tenancy agreement ... concerning LOC that have been returned to their former owner shall be extended at the request of the tenant for a maximum period of DATE from the date on which the present Ordinance comes into force . ”

“ A new tenancy agreement shall be entered into between the landlord and the tenant at the tenant ’s request . The private landlord shall register the new tenancy agreement with the local tax authorities . The legal entity that previously possessed or administered the property shall inform the tenant under the existing tenancy agreement , by letter with return receipt , within DATE after the return of the property , that he or she may from DATE enter into a new tenancy agreement with the landlord to whom the property has been returned . ”

“ The landlord shall notify the tenant , within DATE following the entry into force of the present Ordinance and through the intermediary of a bailiff , of the date and place fixed for the signing of a new tenancy agreement . The notice shall be served by registered letter with return receipt . ... ”

“ Failure by the landlord to comply with the provisions of LAW shall lead to the automatic extension of the existing tenancy agreement until the parties have entered into a new agreement . Failure by the tenant to pay rent until the signing of the new agreement may not be relied upon by the landlord as a ground for eviction .

In the event that , within DATE following the date of receipt of the notice , the tenant fails to reply in writing or refuses without justification to enter into a new tenancy agreement , the landlord shall be entitled to seek the unconditional eviction of the tenant ... by presidential decree . ”

“ The tenancy agreement shall not be extended :

( d ) in the event of a dispute resulting from the refusal of the tenant , after being notified pursuant to LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , NORP or ORG , to enter into a new tenancy agreement with the landlord ;

( i ) where the tenant renders cohabitation impossible or impedes the normal use of the dwelling ;

“ The amount of the rent shall be fixed by negotiation between the tenant and the landlord at the time they enter into the new tenancy agreement . The rent shall not exceed PERCENT of the DATE net income of the household if this income does not exceed the average DATE net salary nationwide . ”

Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE approved Government Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL and amended its LAW , raising to DATE the term of the tenancy agreement extended at the request of the tenant where the property had been returned to its former owner . The PERSON also amended LAW by providing that the rent to be paid by the tenant could not exceed PERCENT of the DATE net income of his household .

Government Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL ceased to be in effect on DATE . Under Government Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , only tenancy agreements concerning premises belonging to the ORG could be extended by DATE , at the request of the tenant .


Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;Giorgio Malinverni;Loukis Loucaides;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE in GPE .

The applicant is a GPE pensioner . She sued ORG for the unpaid allowances .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the Town Court ” ) awarded her the unpaid disability allowance over the period DATE and DATE in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) . The judgment entered into force on DATE . It was enforced in full on DATE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG awarded the applicant the unpaid food and disability allowances over the period DATE and DATE in the amount of RUB CARDINAL and RUB MONEY respectively . The judgment acquired legal force on DATE . It appears that it has not been enforced to date .

On DATE ORG recovered in the applicant 's favour the unpaid disability allowance over the period DATE and DATE in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . The judgment became final on DATE . It was fully enforced on DATE .

By a judgment of CARDINAL May CARDINAL ORG awarded the applicant the unpaid disability allowance over the period DATE and DATE in the amount of RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The court also increased the DATE disability allowance to RUB MONEY as of DATE and held that it had to be index - linked in accordance with legislation . On CARDINAL DATE the judgment acquired legal force . On DATE ORG ordered to increase the applicant 's DATE disability allowance to RUB MONEY . On DATE the applicant received RUB CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG recovered in the applicant 's favour the unpaid food allowance over the period DATE and DATE in the amount of RUB CARDINAL and the unpaid DATE disability allowance for DATE in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . The court also increased the applicant 's DATE food allowance to RUB MONEY as of DATE and ordered to index - link it in accordance with legislation . The court further held that as of DATE ORG was to pay the applicant an DATE disability allowance and to index - link it in accordance with legislation . The judgment entered into force on DATE . It appears that it has not been enforced to date .

NORP On DATE ORG awarded the applicant RUB PERSON for the unpaid disability allowance over the period between CARDINAL April CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE the judgment acquired legal force . It was fully enforced on DATE .