The applicant , ORG , is a NORP national of NORP origin , born in DATE and , at the time of introduction of the application , he was detained in the GPE for expulsion purposes . He is represented before the ORG by Ms G.E.M. Later , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

In DATE , the applicant entered the GPE where he stayed until his expulsion to GPE on DATE . He returned to the GPE on DATE . On DATE , the NORP consular authorities in the GPE issued a new NORP PERSON identity card to the applicant .

On DATE , the applicant applied for asylum or , in the alternative , a residence permit on humanitarian grounds . He based his claims , inter alia , on the argument that as a person of NORP origin he did not wish to perform his military service in GPE as he might be sent to south - east GPE where he would be made to fight his own people .

The applicant 's requests were rejected by the ORG Secretary of ORG ( ORG ) on DATE and the applicant was ordered to leave the GPE . The applicant 's objection ( bezwaarschrift ) against this decision was rejected by the ORG Secretary on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal with ORG ( ORG ) sitting in GPE against the ORG Secretary 's decision of DATE . He further requested ORG to issue an injunction on his expulsion pending the appeal proceedings .

On DATE , ORG rejected both the applicant 's request for an injunction and his appeal against the decision of DATE . This decision was notified to the parties on DATE .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary issued an order for the applicant 's expulsion from the GPE . At some unspecified point in time the applicant was expelled to GPE . He returned to the GPE at a later unspecified point in time .

On DATE and on the basis of a change in the case - law concerning NORP - NORP asylum seekers who had evaded military service in GPE , the applicant requested the ORG Secretary to reconsider ( heroverwegen ) his case . On DATE , the ORG Secretary informed the applicant that his request was in essence a new request for asylum and that such a request should be filed at CARDINAL of the reception centres for asylum seekers or the aliens ' department ( vreemdelingendienst ) in the applicant 's place of residency . On DATE , the applicant filed an objection against the ORG Secretary 's letter of DATE .

On DATE , the NORP consular authorities in the GPE issued a NORP passport to the applicant with a validity of one year .

On DATE , the applicant was apprehended as an illegal alien when he presented himself to the GPE aliens ' department in order to obtain certain documents required for his intended marriage to his NORP partner PERSON When his particulars , as stated in his passport , were verified in ORG ( Vreemdelingen Administratie Systeem ) , it appeared that he was registered as a person who , on the basis of a decision taken by ORG on DATE , was no longer entitled to stay in the GPE .

Although the applicant held a registration card indicating that , as from DATE , he had reported himself DATE to the aliens ' department in the asylum seekers ' reception centre in PERSON ( a town near GPE ) , his residence status could nevertheless not be sufficiently established and as there were apparently no proceedings pending on a request by the applicant for a residence permit , the applicant was placed in aliens ' detention for the purposes of his expulsion ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) under LAW ( a ) of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet ) on DATE .

Also on DATE , the applicant requested ORG to issue an injunction on his expulsion pending the determination by the ORG Secretary of his request for a reconsideration of his first request for asylum . He further filed a second request for asylum or a residence permit on humanitarian grounds and , on this basis , was placed in aliens ' detention under LAW ( c ) of LAW .

On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal with ORG against his placement in aliens ' detention and he requested compensation for the time spent in aliens ' detention .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was interviewed by an official of ORG in relation to the grounds for his request for asylum . He claimed , inter alia , that he had been summoned to report for military service in GPE and that he feared that , as a conscript in the NORP army , he would be deployed against his own people .

On DATE , after a hearing held on DATE in the course of which the applicant was represented by his lawyer , ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal of CARDINAL DATE as well as his request for compensation . It did not find it established that the applicant 's placement in aliens ' detention was in violation of LAW or that , after having balanced the interests involved , it could not reasonably be regarded as justified .

ORG noted that , when the applicant had presented himself to the aliens ' department on DATE in connection with his intended marriage , it had appeared that he was no longer allowed to stay in the GPE . It held that this was sufficient indication that the applicant was an illegal alien . The court agreed with the ORG Secretary that public order required the applicant 's placement in aliens ' detention given the fact that he had resided illegally in the GPE for DATE , had returned to the GPE after having been expelled , had applied for asylum DATE after he had returned to the GPE in DATE and had failed to leave the GPE after this request for asylum had been rejected .

ORG also held that it did not automatically follow from the fact that the applicant reported himself to a reception centre for asylum seekers DATE in order to obtain his benefits under the Regulation on Reception of Asylum Seekers ( Regeling Opvang Asielzoekers ) that he would respect an obligation to report to the authorities on a regular basis , given that he had evaded control for DATE and that he was now aware of the fact that the authorities were actively pursuing his expulsion . Insofar as the applicant relied on his relationship and cohabitation with his NORP partner , ORG noted that , according to the record of the applicant 's interview held on DATE , he had been unable to state her name correctly .

ORG further held that the argument , advanced by the applicant , to the effect that it could no longer be excluded that persons of NORP origin , while doing their military service in GPE , would be deployed in south - east GPE , by no means increased the chances of success of his second request for asylum , since additional conditions needed to be fulfilled for that to be the case . Finally , ORG accepted that the ORG Secretary had valid reasons to suspect that the applicant would seek ways to avoid his expulsion .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary rejected the applicant 's request for asylum or a residence permit on humanitarian grounds and ordered his expulsion from the GPE . As a result , the legal basis for the applicant 's placement in aliens ' detention was changed to LAW ( a ) of LAW .

On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal with ORG sitting in GPE against the ORG Secretary 's decision of DATE . As he had been placed in aliens ' detention he was not required , like asylum seekers not placed in such detention , first to file an objection ( bezwaarschrift ) with the ORG Secretary of ORG before filing an appeal with ORG .

As the ORG Secretary had failed to respond to the applicant 's objection of DATE , the applicant filed an appeal with ORG sitting in GPE on DATE against this failure to determine his objection timely .

On DATE , the applicant filed a second appeal with ORG against the measure of his placement in aliens ' detention and he requested compensation for the time spent in aliens ' detention .

On DATE , after a hearing held on DATE , ORG decided on the applicant 's appeal of CARDINAL DATE against his placement in aliens ' detention . Insofar as relevant , it held :

“ CARDINAL . ORG considers from the outset that the lawfulness of the measure of placement in aliens ' detention has , as such , already been decided in this court 's decision of DATE which has obtained the force of res iudicata . The only issue to be examined now is the lawfulness of the continuation of the placement in aliens ' detention in the circumstances of the present case .

... The < applicant 's > representative has ... submitted that the expulsion of NORP / NORP aliens has been suspended in connection with an incident in GPE , in which an expelled NORP / NORP alien is alleged to have been killed , so that there are no prospects for expulsion and , for this reason , the continuation of the placement in aliens ' detention is unlawful .

ORG considers , with reference to the letter of CARDINAL DATE of the ORG Secretary addressed to the ORG ordinator for ORG of ORG , that in any event as from that date there are no prospects of expulsion of < the applicant > within a delay that can be regarded as reasonable . On this point , ORG notes that ORG , upon a request by the ORG Secretary of ORG , has conducted an investigation into the backgrounds of the above mentioned incident . Since it was initially assumed that this investigation would only take a relatively short period of time , ORG did not previously see any reason to conclude that there were no longer any prospects for expulsion within a reasonable time . From the aforementioned letter of CARDINAL DATE it has , however , become clear that the investigation by < ORG has been delayed , as a consequence of the heavy earthquake in GPE , to such an extent that expulsion within a reasonable time can no longer be envisaged . The court considers , therefore , that the continuation of the placement in aliens ' detention as from DATE is unlawful .

In relation to the above < considerations > , ORG sees no reason to award compensation . ”

ORG did , however , find reasons to order that the applicant 's legal costs incurred be compensated and , consequently , issued an order for costs against the ORG Secretary . The applicant was released from aliens ' detention DATE .

On DATE , the applicant applied for a residence permit on the basis of a temporary regulation on the legalisation of illegal aliens who had been residing in the GPE for a long period of time ( PERSON regeling witte illegalen ) .

On DATE , the applicant married PERSON and , on the basis of his marriage to a NORP national , applied on DATE for a residence permit on grounds of “ stay with NORP spouse ” .

On DATE , ORG sitting in GPE declared well - founded the applicant 's appeal of CARDINAL DATE against the ORG Secretary 's failure to determine timely the applicant 's objection of DATE and ordered the ORG Secretary to decide on the objection within DATE .

On DATE , the applicant was informed that he had failed to submit some of the required documents in respect of his request of CARDINAL DATE . He was invited to complete his application within DATE .

In its decision of DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG declared the applicant 's appeal well - founded , quashed the ORG Secretary 's decision of DATE and ordered the ORG Secretary to take a new decision on the applicant 's request of DATE within DATE . ORG noted that there had been a change in the case - law concerning NORP - NORP asylum seekers on the basis of , inter alia , an official report ( ambtsbericht ) of the Minister of Foreign Affairs ( Minister PERSON ) . ORG found that the conclusion set out in this official report , to the effect that there had apparently been an increase in the chances of NORP young men being deployed in south - east GPE as members of the NORP armed forces , constituted a relevant new fact in relation to the examination of the applicant 's first request for asylum and that , therefore the substance of his second request for asylum had to be examined in full . It was further found established that the applicant had been summoned to report for military service in GPE and that an order for his apprehension had been issued by the NORP authorities .

On DATE , the applicant informed the ORG that , in the meantime , he had been granted a residence permit on grounds of his marriage to a NORP national .

LAW , insofar as relevant , provides :

“ CARDINAL . If the interests of public order , public policy or national security so require , the following categories of aliens may be detained :

a. aliens whose expulsion has been ordered ;

b. aliens in respect of whom there are serious ground to believe that their expulsion will be ordered ;

c. aliens who are not allowed to reside in the GPE by virtue of any of the provisions contained in ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL < of LAW > , pending the decision on an application for a residence permit , a permanent residence permit or leave to enter as refugees .

An alien shall not be detained when , and detention shall be terminated as soon as , he intimates that he wishes to leave the GPE and is in fact in a position to do so .

Detention for the reasons set out in the first sentence of paragraph CARDINAL and for the categories referred to under b. or c. of that paragraph shall not be of longer duration than DATE .... ”

An alien whose expulsion has been ordered can , in principle , remain in aliens ' detention for an unlimited period of time . The lawfulness of a placement in aliens ' detention can , however , be challenged before a court . Where the court is of the opinion that there are no prospects of expulsion within a reasonable time , it can order that the measure of placement in aliens ' detention be terminated .

It has been established in the case - law of ORG ( ORG ) of ORG that the interest of an alien to be released from aliens ' detention increases with the passage of time . Where a placement in aliens ' detention exceeds a period of DATE , it is generally held that the alien 's interest in being released is greater than the interest to keep him in detention for the purposes of expulsion . Depending on the specific circumstances of each case , this point in time may also be reached before or after DATE have passed . It may be later where the alien frustrates the determination of his identity or nationality and it may be earlier where the alien concerned is unable to obtain travel documents for reasons beyond his control .

Although no appeal lies against a decision by ORG in proceedings concerning requests for release from detention for expulsion purposes , an appeal to ORG ( Gerechtshof ) is available in relation to a decision taken in the context of such proceedings on a request for compensation for the time spent in detention for expulsion purposes .

There is no time - limit for the filing of an appeal against a decision of placement in aliens ' detention and in principle a person placed in aliens ' detention may file as many appeals against this decision as he sees fit . When the lawfulness of a decision of placement in aliens ' detention has been determined for a first time , the examination of any subsequent appeal in this respect will be limited to the lawfulness of the continuation of the placement in aliens ' detention as from DATE last judicial decision taken on this point .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary of ORG requested ORG to suspend the examination of appeals , including requests for injunctions on expulsions , filed by asylum seekers of NORP origin , as it had appeared that CARDINAL such asylum seekers had encountered serious problems after they had been expelled to GPE .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary informed ORG that , in view of reports on what had happened to CARDINAL asylum seekers who had been expelled to GPE , a policy decision had been taken to suspend temporarily the expulsion of NORP nationals of NORP origin .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant claimed a sum of money before the ORG .

On DATE ORG issued a payment order in summary proceedings . As the defendant filed an objection to the order , the court started dealing with the case in ordinary proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action . On DATE it submitted the case to the court of appeal following the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE ORG found that ORG had violated the applicant 's right under LAW to a hearing within a reasonable time . The case was not complex and the applicant by his conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings by not responding to a ORG request and by asking for adjournment of CARDINAL hearings . ORG also concluded that ORG had failed to proceed with the case in an efficient manner . It held that in view of the very simple legal question to be determined and the value of the claim , the court was obliged to organise its work in a way enabling it to decide the case within CARDINAL hearing .

ORG refused to award the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non - pecuniary damage since the case had already been decided by the first - instance court and the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings . It ordered ORG to avoid any further delay in the proceedings ( should the case be returned to it ) and to reimburse the applicant 's legal costs .

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


No violation of Art. 8;Remainder inadmissible

David Scicluna;David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , GPE . The third and fourth applicants are the children of the first and second applicants .

The applicants have resided in a house in GPE owned by the first and second applicants since DATE . Their property includes QUANTITY . m of surrounding fields . The house is CARDINAL of QUANTITY houses in a remote area of grassland .

DATE , on the occasion of certain village feasts , firework displays are set up in the fields close to the applicants’ residence ( a distance of QUANTITY or more ) .

The applicants allege that every time fireworks are let off from this area they are exposed to grave risk and peril to their life , physical health and personal security . Moreover , the heavy debris produced causes considerable damage to the residence .

In consequence , over DATE the applicants complained to the Commissioner of Police ( “ CoP ” ) , but no remedial action was taken .

On an unspecified date the applicants brought their complaint before the ORG . By a report of DATE , the latter recommended that in considering applications for discharge of fireworks from areas whose residents had put forward complaints , the CoP should request the advice of a group of experts established by law in order to determine whether the area in question ought to be declared a restricted area in terms of Rule CARDINAL of ORG and Other Explosives Regulations ( “ the regulations ” ) .

Eventually , the group of experts recommended that the fields from where the fireworks were being let off should be classified as a restricted area in terms of the regulations .

In spite of this recommendation the CoP again issued permits for the letting off of fireworks from the field in question for the purposes of CARDINAL village feasts . Since the committee of experts had not , at the relevant time , been constituted , the CoP acted on the recommendations of ORG .

The applicants again complained to the ORG . By a report of DATE , the latter held the complaint justified and noted that the CARDINAL licences issued were not in accordance with the regulations ( regarding the applicable distances and type of fireworks ) . The group of experts had the duty to give advice and the competent authority had little justification to exercise its discretion and refuse this expert advice on such technical matters . While the pressure applied on the authorities from DATE in such cases was well known , this was an instance of maladministration which could not but attract criticism .

This notwithstanding , the CoP continued to issue the relevant permits for the purposes of CARDINAL feasts per year , to the present date .

The applicants alleged that further requests to the CoP , by the applicants and their neighbours , for information or reasons as to why they had not been consulted , remained unheeded , except for CARDINAL meeting which was held at the police station in the absence of the group of experts .

On DATE the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings , complaining that the CoP was not protecting them as he was duty bound to do . While he ignored the experts’ recommendations , the applicants had not been consulted about the issue of the relevant permits . They submitted that the law did not protect their interests , in that although it established a certain distance which had to be maintained between residences and the letting off of fireworks , it applied such distances only to “ inhabited areas ” which according to law meant “ an aggregation of houses inhabited , or capable of being inhabited , by CARDINAL persons ” . However , their house was CARDINAL of CARDINAL in the area and thus did not benefit from the protection of the law . Moreover , they claimed that the law was deficient , as it did not provide a procedure for issuing licences whereby the residents were informed and could make submissions to safeguard their interests , or appeal against the issue of such permits . Furthermore , the application of the definition of “ inhabited area ” resulted in discriminatory treatment against the applicants . They invoked DATE , alone and in conjunction with LAW .

On DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction upheld the applicants’ claims in part . It dismissed the complaint about the failure of the authorities to take appropriate procedures for the issue of licences for lack of exhaustion of ordinary remedies . For the rest , it held that the legal definition of “ inhabited area ” breached the applicants’ rights under LAW , alone and in conjunction with LAW , and that the law regarding the issue of permits and licences also breached their rights under LAW , in that its application failed to include sufficient procedural safeguards . The ORG noted that the applicants were aware of the situation when they purchased the property . However , it noted that the letting off of fireworks had caused damage to the applicants’ property , namely to the roof ’s membrane and the swimming pool area , as a result of the debris produced ; and during the relevant feasts the noise levels were very high , to the extent that the applicants were suffering hearing impairment that could become permanent . Although the effects of this pollution were not continuous , as in most cases which had been decided by the ORG , the practice of letting off of fireworks would certainly continue and its effects on the applicants included damage and threats to their person and their home , as dangerous unexploded fireworks were often found in the surroundings . In consequence , the court considered that , while the legality of the issue of these permits was questionable , by depriving the applicants of protection , on the basis that their area did not accommodate CARDINAL people , the law was not giving due weight to the interests of the applicants .

The respondent ORG , together with ORG and the NORP society of ORG , appealed . In common they submitted , inter alia , that unlike the ORG cases dealing with environmental pollution , the present case did not deal with such pollution , because , among other reasons , the letting off of fireworks was restricted to TIME over DATE in DATE .

On DATE , ORG reversed the first - instance judgment . It noted that the applicants’ case was not grounded on LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW , although the applicants had made reference to damage to their property , but on LAW . Thus , the ORG had to establish whether the ORG had taken all the necessary measures to protect the applicants’ rights under this provision . The ORG acknowledged that the noise and peril to their lives and property during DATE created an inconvenience for the applicants which amounted to interference . However , the interference was in accordance with the law , as it had its basis in ORG and Other Explosives Regulations , and whether the CoP had issued licences according to the regulations , a matter which was to be examined by the ordinary courts as established by the first - instance court , was irrelevant . As to the proportionality of the interference the ORG considered that in the present case the complaint was not directed towards a fireworks factory near the ORG residence , but simply the venue used to let off the fireworks at a specific time . In the present case , the relevant law struck a balance between the conflicting interests by means of specific measures , such as the times at which fireworks could be let off ; the type of fireworks which could be let off ; the different venues which could be used ; the security distances which had to be complied with ; compulsory insurance coverage ; the presence of a fire engine ; and police on site . Indeed , in the present case the police were on site to make sure that the action was taken according to the permits issued and a person from the relevant association was present in the area of the ORG houses as a precaution . The latter association also offered the applicants its help and protection to prevent any harm to the property . Thus , it could not be said that the applicants had not been protected . As to the definition of “ inhabited area ” , it was to be borne in mind that GPE was a small country , densely populated , with few , if any , areas where no people lived , and such legislation could only be seen in this context . Furthermore , the letting off of fireworks happened in a limited period for TIME in DATE twice a year and DATE even less often . Acknowledging that such noise might also cause disturbance to other persons , old and young especially , the court could not ignore the fact that the applicants had been informed of this danger by the previous owner ( who had had an accident in the house due to the fireworks ) before they bought the house . Yet , they chose to purchase the said property . Overall the court was of the view that the legislator had successfully tried to reach a balance between the right to home and private life of the applicants and the traditional , cultural , religious and touristic needs of NORP society , bearing in mind the size of the island . This might be otherwise if it were established that the measures applied were or would not be in accordance with the parameters set by law , a matter which the applicants had and have the right to contest before the ordinary courts regarding any future permit granted . In consequence there was no violation of LAW .

As to the alleged discrimination , the court reiterated that the provision only applied to persons in analogous situations . However , the applicants had not proved that they had been treated differently to other persons who resided in “ inhabited areas ” . Moreover , it has already been held that the applicants were receiving appropriate protection and that the applicants had knowingly decided to move to the area in question .

Fireworks in GPE have a long - standing tradition which is still very much alive in the crowded calendar of village feasts that take place all over GPE and GPE , especially in DATE .

The facts of this case deal with a specific area where fireworks are let off during CARDINAL separate DATE and only during DATE , therefore not on a DATE basis during DATE . Moreover , from DATE the site was used for fireworks less regularly ( following a death amongst the pyrotechnic personnel of the relevant parish while manufacturing fireworks ) .

NORP The relevant sections of ORG and Other Explosives Regulations , Subsidiary Legislation CARDINAL , as amended by LAW of CARDINAL , in so far as relevant at the time of the present case , read as follows :

Section CARDINAL

“ In these regulations , unless the context otherwise requires -

“ inhabited area ” means any area in which there is an aggregation of houses inhabited , or capable of being inhabited , by CARDINAL persons ; ”

Section CARDINAL

“ Any person who applies for a licence to discharge fireworks as provided for in LAW shall -

( a ) comply with the times set out in the First Schedule or as otherwise indicated in the licence ;

( b ) satisfy the Commissioner that the fireworks were manufactured in a licensed factory ;

( c ) produce a policy of insurance adequately covering any claims arising from the death or personal injury to third parties or from damage to third party ’s property that may be caused by any explosion or other factor during discharge of fireworks ;

( d ) ensure that persons letting off fireworks are in possession of a Category " A " , " B " or " C " licence . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ No person shall discharge any fireworks from any site unless -

( a ) the site is the one approved for that purpose in a licence issued under the Ordinance ;

( b ) in the discharge of any fireworks from any approved site , he satisfies the provisions set out in the First and Second Schedules ;

( c ) the pipes for the discharge of aerial fireworks are effectively screened at the site by wooden boards , sandbags , tyres or cardboard or wooden boxes filled with soil or similar material , so as to prevent the flying of fragments caused by unintentional explosion . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) Only fireworks of the approved type may be let off from a restricted site .

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of sub - regulation ( CARDINAL ) hereof , a " restricted site " is a site so declared by the Commissioner on the advice of the group of experts referred to in regulation CARDINAL and includes an area within such distance from such site as may be declared by the Commissioner on the advice of the same group , and " fireworks of the approved type " are fireworks of such type as may be approved by the Commissioner for the purpose on the advice of the said group . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Minister shall appoint a group of experts under the chairmanship of the chairman of ORG for the purposes of regulation CARDINAL , consisting of -

( a ) all the members of ORG ,

( b ) a representative of ORG ,

( c ) a representative of ORG ,

( d ) a representative of such association as in the opinion of the Minister is most representative of fireworks manufacturers ,

( e ) such other person chosen from amongst persons who in the opinion of the Minister have knowledge and experience in explosives and/or fireworks after consultation with the most representative organisations concerned in such matters .

( CARDINAL ) In submitting their advice , the experts shall take into consideration the type of fireworks to be discharged from the site , the value , historical or otherwise , of the site from where these fireworks are intended to be discharged , and the safety distances involved . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ The person licensed to discharge fireworks shall take the necessary steps for the recovery and removal from the area around the site of discharge , of such items of fireworks which fail to ignite or explode as well as any other material resulting from the discharge of such fireworks . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ No aerial fireworks shall be discharged on DATE and times other than those indicated in the Police permit . ”

The First Schedule of the regulations , in so far as relevant at the time of the present case , regarding times of discharging of fireworks , provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Moving the Statue from the Niche

TIME .. .................................. TIME

TIME ............................................. TIME

Removal of the statue from the niche .... TIME

Evening display ..................... TIME , not to finish TIME

First and DATE of Triduum

End of religious function ( barka ) .... TIME

Third Day of Triduum

As per DATE at CARDINAL and CARDINAL above , except that the evening display may extend for TIME , but not to exceed TIME

Eve of the Feast

PERSON or TIME .. .................................. QUANTITY

Evening service ( PERSON ) ........................ TIME of daylight fireworks display

Evening display ................................. to commence by not TIME but to finish by not later than CARDINAL.CARDINALpm ( provided that any such display shall not exceed in total a maximum of TIME from commencement )

DATE Day of the Feast

TIME .. ............... TIME

TIME / Sanctus ............................................. TIME

Procession ............................................ ( a ) TIME and to finish by TIME in general

ORG or ( b ) TIME to finish by TIME ”

The Second Schedule of the regulations , in so far as relevant at the time of the present case , provided as follows :

PERSON for the letting off of fireworks

“ ( a ) To be discharged from QUANTITY distance from an inhabited area or public streets used regularly by motor vehicles - bukketti tal - kulur and beraq / spanjoli of up to CARDINALcms diameter ; maroons can not be discharged .

( b ) To be discharged from QUANTITY distance from an inhabited area or public streets used regularly by motor vehicles - maroons not exceeding QUANTITY in diameter and QUANTITY in length ; also coloured , whistles or cracker shells ( kaxxi tal - bombi , kuluri , beraq u sfafar ) .

( c ) To be discharged from QUANTITY distance from an inhabited area or public streets used regularly by motor vehicles - all other types of fireworks . ”

ORG is not constituted by law to advise on such matters , but forms part of ORG established by PERSON ( section CARDINAL , above ) .

According to a report of ORG of the NORP of GPE , there were CARDINAL fatalities and QUANTITY injuries related to fireworks DATE , of which PERCENT occurred during the actual discharge of fireworks .

To date the majority of firework - related accidents remains associated with factory accidents , with , for example , the following data available for DATE , according to local newspapers :

DATE CARDINAL men die in an explosion at PERSON fireworks factory in PERSON .

DATE escape unhurt when the GPE factory explodes in GPE .

DATE CARDINAL man dies at PERSON fireworks factory in GPE .

DATE A man dies at the DATE fireworks factory in GPE .

DATE PERSON fireworks factory explodes , CARDINAL dead , CARDINAL missing and CARDINAL injured ( with a final tally of CARDINAL dead ) .


Violation of Art. 8;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

Giovanni Bonello;Javier Borrego Borrego;Josep Casadevall;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Rait Maruste;Stanislav Pavlovschi

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant was employed by ORG ( “ the College ” ) . The ORG is a statutory body administered by the ORG and possessing powers under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Further and LAW DATE relating to the provision of further and higher education .

NORP In DATE the applicant became the personal assistant to ORG ( “ the LOC ” ) and from DATE she was required to work closely with the newly appointed Deputy PERSON ( “ the DP ” ) .

In DATE , whilst on DATE leave , the applicant visited another campus of the ORG with a male director . She subsequently became aware that the ORG had contacted that campus to enquire about her visit and understood that he was suggesting an improper relationship between her and the director .

During her employment , the applicant ’s telephone , e - mail and Internet usage were subjected to monitoring at the ORG ’s instigation . According to the Government , this monitoring took place in order to ascertain whether the applicant was making excessive use of College facilities for personal purposes . The Government stated that the monitoring of telephone usage consisted of analysis of the ORG telephone bills showing telephone numbers called , the dates and times of the calls , and their length and cost . The applicant also believed that there had been detailed and comprehensive logging of the length of calls , the number of calls received and made , and the telephone numbers of individuals calling her . She stated that on CARDINAL occasion the ORG became aware of the name of an individual with whom she had exchanged incoming and outgoing telephone calls . The Government submitted that the monitoring of telephone usage took place for DATE up to CARDINAL DATE . The applicant contended that her telephone usage was monitored over a period of DATE until DATE .

The applicant ’s Internet usage was also monitored by the ORG . The ORG accepted that this monitoring took the form of analysing the websites visited , the times and dates of the visits to the websites and their duration , and that this monitoring took place from DATE . The applicant did not comment on the manner in which her Internet usage was monitored but submitted that it took place over a much longer period of time than the Government had admitted .

NORP In DATE the applicant became aware that enquiries were being made into her use of e - mail at work when her step - daughter was contacted by ORG and asked to supply information about e - mails that she had sent to ORG . The applicant wrote to the ORG to ask whether there was a general investigation taking place or whether her e - mails only were being investigated . By an e - mail of DATE , the ORG advised the applicant that , whilst all e - mail activity was logged , the information technology department of the ORG was investigating only her e - mails , following a request by the ORG .

The Government submitted that monitoring of e - mails took the form of analysis of e - mail addresses and dates and times at which e - mails were sent and that the monitoring occurred for DATE prior to CARDINAL DATE . According to the applicant , the monitoring of e - mails occurred for DATE from DATE . She provided documentary evidence in the form of printouts detailing her email usage from DATE to CARDINAL DATE which set out the date and time of emails sent from her e - mail account together with the recipients’ email addresses .

By a memorandum of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG wrote to the ORG to confirm the contents of a conversation they had had in the following terms :

“ To avoid ambiguity I felt it worthwhile to confirm my views expressed to you DATE , regarding the investigation of [ the applicant ’s ] e - mail traffic .

Subsequent to [ the applicant ] becoming aware that someone from [ the ORG ] had been following up her e - mails , I spoke to [ GPE ] who confirmed that this was true and had been instigated by yourself . Given the forthcoming legislation making it illegal for organisations to examine someone ’s e - mail without permission , I naturally felt concerned over recent events and instructed [ ST ] not to carry out any further analysis . Furthermore , I asked you to do likewise and asked that any information you have of concern regarding [ the applicant ] be forwarded to me as a matter of priority . You indicated that you would respond positively to both requests , whilst reaffirming your concerns regarding [ the applicant ] . ”

There was no policy in force at the College at the material time regarding the monitoring of telephone , e - mail or Internet usage by employees .

In DATE or DATE the applicant was informed by other members of staff at ORG that DATE and DATE several of her activities had been monitored by the ORG or those acting on his behalf . The applicant also believed that people to whom she had made calls were in turn telephoned by the ORG , or those acting on his behalf , to identify the callers and the purpose of the call . She further believed that the ORG became aware of a legally privileged fax that was sent by herself to her solicitors and that her personal movements , both at work and when on DATE or sick leave , were the subject of surveillance .

The applicant provided the ORG with statements from other members of staff alleging inappropriate and intrusive monitoring of their movements . The applicant , who is still employed by the ORG , understands that the ORG has been suspended .

At the relevant time there was no general right to privacy in LANGUAGE law .

Since the implementation of LAW DATE on DATE , the courts have been required to read and give effect to primary legislation in a manner which is compatible with Convention rights so far as possible . The LAW also made it unlawful for any public authority , including a court , to act in a manner which is incompatible with a LAW right unless required to do so by primary legislation , thus providing for the development of the common law in accordance with Convention rights . In the case of PERSON v. Hello ! Ltd ( [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL ) , Lord Justice PERSON indicated that he was prepared to find that there was a qualified right to privacy under LANGUAGE law , but ORG did not rule on the point .

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act CARDINAL ( “ the DATE Act ” ) provided for the regulation of , inter alia , interception of communications . The Telecommunications ( Lawful Business Practice ) Regulations CARDINAL were promulgated under LAW and came into force on DATE . The ORG set out the circumstances in which employers could record or monitor employees’ communications ( such as e - mail or telephone ) without the consent of either the employee or the other party to the communication . Employers were required to take reasonable steps to inform employees that their communications might be intercepted .

ORG in ORG ( [ DATE ] IRLR CARDINAL ) confirmed that , as a matter of law , a general term is implied into each employment contract that an employer will not “ without reasonable and proper cause , conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee ” . In GPE , ORG was concerned with the award of so - called “ stigma compensation ” where an ex - employee is unable to find further employment due to association with a dishonest former employer . In considering the damages that could be awarded for breach of the obligation of trust and confidence , the ORG was solely concerned with the payment of compensation for financial loss resulting from handicap in the labour market . Lord PERSON expressly noted that “ [ CARDINAL the present purposes I am not concerned with the exclusion of damages for injured feelings , the present case is concerned only with financial loss ” .

In limiting the scope of the implied term of trust and confidence in GPE , Lord PERSON stated as follows :

“ [ T]he implied mutual obligation of trust and confidence applies only where there is ‘ no reasonable and proper cause’ for the employer ’s conduct , and then only if the conduct is calculated to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence . That circumscribes the potential reach and scope of the implied obligation . ”

The tort of misfeasance in public office arises when a public official has either ( a ) exercised his power specifically intending to injure the plaintiff , or ( b ) acted in the knowledge of , or with reckless indifference to , the illegality of his act and in the knowledge or with reckless indifference to the probability of causing injury to the claimant or a class of people of which the claimant is a member ( CARDINAL ORG v. ORG ( No . CARDINAL ) ( ORG ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL ) .

At the time of the acts complained of by the applicant , LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) regulated the manner in which people and organisations that held data , known as “ data holders ” , processed or used those data . It provided certain actionable remedies to individuals in the event of misuse of their personal data . LAW has now been replaced by LAW .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act defined its terms as follows .

( CARDINAL ) NORP means information recorded in a form in which it can be processed by equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose .

( CARDINAL ) ORG means data consisting of information which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that information ( or from that and other information in the possession of the data user ) ...

( CARDINAL ) NORP ’Data subject’ means an individual who is the subject of personal data .

( CARDINAL ) NORP ’Data user’ means a person who holds data , and a person ‘ holds’ data if –

( a ) the data form part of a collection of data processed or intended to be processed by or on behalf of that person as mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) above ; and

( b ) that person ... controls the contents and use of the data comprised in the collection ; and

( c ) the data are in the form in which they have been or are intended to be processed as mentioned in paragraph ( a ) ...

( CARDINAL ) ’Processing’ , in relation to data , means amending , augmenting , deleting or rearranging the data or extracting the information constituting the data and , in the case of personal data , means performing any of these operations by reference to the data subject .

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , in relation to data , includes disclosing information extracted from the data ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The information to be contained in personal data shall be obtained , and personal data shall be processed , fairly and lawfully .

Personal data shall be held only for CARDINAL or more specified and lawful purposes .

Personal data held for any purpose ... shall be adequate , relevant and not excessive in relation to that purpose or those purposes . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) An individual who is the subject of personal data held by a data user ... and who suffers damage by reason of –

( c ) ... the disclosure of the data , or access having been obtained to the data , without such authority as aforesaid ,

shall be entitled to compensation from the data user ... for that damage and for any distress which the individual has suffered by reason of the ... disclosure or access . ”

The DATE Act also created the position of ORG , under a duty to promote the observance of the data protection principles by data users . In section CARDINAL it created a criminal offence as follows .

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the Registrar is satisfied that a registered person has contravened or is contravening any of the data protection principles he may serve him with a notice ( ‘ an enforcement notice’ ) requiring him to take ... such steps as are so specified for complying with the principle or principles in question .

( CARDINAL ) In deciding whether to serve an enforcement notice the Registrar shall consider whether the contravention has caused or is likely to cause any person damage or distress .

( CARDINAL ) NORP person who fails to comply with an enforcement notice shall be guilty of an offence ... ”


No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Witnesses);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the police about suspected fraud . In DATE he was charged with several offences . The trial before the GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) involved DATE of hearings . The applicant was represented by the same counsel throughout the ORG proceedings and at all subsequent court levels . The court received testimony from the defendants , the complainants and CARDINAL witnesses . On DATE and DATE the prosecution presented documentary evidence , including some documents drawn up by a PERSON , who was working off - shore for a bank and who , in answer to a letter rogatory sent by ORG ( keskusrikospoliisi , centralkriminalpolisen ) to the GPE authorities , had produced documents ( including “ notes for archives ” pertaining to meetings on CARDINAL and DATE and charts ) related to a plan to transfer funds .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of CARDINAL counts of dishonesty as a debtor and CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The ORG judgment ran to CARDINAL pages . In short and in so far as relevant , the court found on the basis of , inter alia , the testimonies of GPE , PERSON , the applicant and his brother and the documentary material , including the documents obtained from the GPE authorities , that the applicant and his brother had discussed the planned transfers of assets with PERSON It also found that the documentary evidence pertaining to the off - shore companies and the transfer of moneys proved that the assets acquired from the sale of the “ bank group ORG had been transferred via companies specified in PERSON 's charts to trusts , the beneficiaries of which the brothers had appointed . As both brothers had been present during the negotiations with PERSON on DATE and the plan to transfer funds had been proved to have materialised , the court found that they had acted together in , inter alia , removing the funds from GPE .

NORP The public prosecutor appealed insofar as the charges had been dismissed and introduced alternative charges of aiding and abetting accounting offences . The applicant appealed against the conviction and requested an oral hearing . In particular , he requested that PERSON , resident in GPE , be heard as a witness either in ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) or by executive assistance abroad if the court was not satisfied that the account of a witness PERSON was sufficient evidence as regards the value and content of the documents drawn up by PERSON In ORG the applicant 's case was open for review in respect of all counts . In the applicant 's view , PERSON 's testimony was relevant to several counts .

On DATE the applicant renewed his request that the court hear evidence from PERSON In its decisions of CARDINAL and DATE ORG refused , as being unnecessary , to receive oral evidence from PERSON It stated that it would provide further reasons in its judgment .

On DATE the court held a preparatory hearing . The applicant unsuccessfully renewed his submission that it was necessary to hear PERSON as a witness .

The first hearing took place on DATE . The parties and altogether CARDINAL witnesses gave oral evidence , of whom CARDINAL were fresh witnesses . The hearing of CARDINAL other proposed witnesses had been rejected .

On DATE ORG pronounced judgment . In addition to the convictions imposed by ORG , it convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of dishonesty as a debtor and of CARDINAL counts of aiding and abetting an accounting offence . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and ordered to be detained immediately . He also lost his military rank .

As regarded the reasons for not hearing PERSON as a witness , the court held , inter alia , that :

“ ORG notes that no request to hear PERSON as a witness was made in ORG although the documents relating to the plan to transfer moneys from the “ bank group ORG had been presented at the hearings of CARDINAL May and DATE ... Also [ the applicant ] relied as written evidence on [ some ] documents drawn up by PERSON without requesting that PERSON be heard as a witness ...

The documents allegedly drawn up by PERSON have not been drawn up for the purposes of the pending proceedings . The import of the documents can be assessed without hearing him as a witness . The question whether it is necessary to hear him as a witness depends solely on whether such a hearing could produce relevant new information . In assessing this question ORG takes into account the fact that in the District Court PERSON was not proposed as a witness and the fact that the parties have been provided with an opportunity to put forward all their opinions concerning the content and reliability of the documents during the trial .

ORG notes that the documents in question have been requested by the public prosecutor and ORG by sending letters rogatory to the GPE authorities . ORG does not have any reason to suspect that the documents were drawn up by someone other than PERSON ...

The documents clearly indicate that there has been a deliberate conspiracy to transfer the assets acquired from the sale of the “ bank group ORG to companies established abroad and to invest the moneys . The transfer of assets has been conducted , as later explained in detail in chapter CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , by order of ... [ the applicant and his co - accused brother ] . The question of whether PERSON himself thought that he was involved only in legal investment activities is therefore not relevant .

The documents drawn up by PERSON are however relevant in assessing ... [ the applicant 's and his co - accused brother 's ] possible guilt of the offence of dishonesty as a debtor ... As becomes manifest in the reasons given in considering the charges , ORG has however not decided the matter basing itself entirely on the documents in question . The court has instead assessed the value of the documents in an overall context , [ in NORP kokonaisyhteydessä ] in which PERSON can not have anything relevant to say .

ORG has heard witness PERSON , as requested ... about the events relating to the documents . The testimony of PERSON , which in [ the applicant 's ] opinion proves the content of the discussions with PERSON , has thus been taken into account ... ORG holds that the requirements of a fair trial do not require that PERSON be heard as a witness either . ”

The Court of Appeal judgment ran to CARDINAL pages . In so far as relevant , the court principally endorsed ORG evaluation of the evidence .

The applicant sought leave to appeal . On DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal .

If an item of evidence that a party wishes to present pertains to a fact that is not material to the case or has already been proved , or if the fact can be proved in another manner with considerably less inconvenience or cost , the court may refuse to admit it ( LAW , LAW as amended by Act no . DATE ) of the Code of Judicial Procedure ) .

Chapter DATE , LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided that a written statement drawn up for a pending or imminent trial , could not be used as evidence , unless specifically provided for by law or unless the court so decided for particular reasons .

Chapter DATE , LAW ( as amended by Act no . ORG ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that ORG was to hold an oral hearing when necessary . LAW , LAW ( as amended by Act no . ORG ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that ORG could not change a lower court 's conviction based on the evaluation of evidence without holding an oral hearing , unless the case concerned an offence punishable by fines only or unless an oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary , in particular taking into account the defendant 's need for legal protection .

The provisions concerning ORG duty to hold an oral hearing were amended ( Act no . PERSON ) with effect from CARDINAL DATE . The new provisions did not apply to criminal proceedings which had commenced prior to the entry into force of the new Code on Criminal Procedure ( laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa , lagen om rättegång i brottmål ; Act no . CARDINAL ; in force from DATE ) . The afore - mentioned former provisions applied therefore to the instant case . The new LAW , LAW no . PERSON ) provides that ORG is to hold a hearing , regardless of whether one has been requested , if the decision in the matter turns on the credibility of the testimony received in ORG or on new testimony to be received in ORG . In this event , the evidence admitted in the ORG proceedings is to be readmitted in the principal hearing , unless there is an impediment to this .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Velenje .

On DATE the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a mine . The applicant ’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

DATE and DATE he made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

Neither of the hearings held on DATE and DATE was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert .

At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) . ZT cross - appealed .

On DATE the court dismissed both appeals .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG sodišče ) . ZT cross - appealed .

On DATE the court dismissed the appeal .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Ms F. ORG , a member of ORG .

At the material time , the applicant was an associate professor at ORG . She began her career in DATE and said that she had worn the NORP headscarf when she obtained her doctorate in DATE and professorship in DATE .

In DATE she was the subject of a disciplinary investigation following an allegation that she had failed to comply with the rules on dress for public servants . On DATE she was suspended from her duties pending the outcome of the investigation . On DATE , pursuant to paragraphs CARDINAL ( g ) and CARDINAL ( m ) of LAW in ORG ( ORG , PERSON ve GPE Disiplin Yönetmeliği – “ the Disciplinary Procedure Rules ” ) , she was given a warning and declared ineligible for promotion for DATE on the ground that she had wilfully and persistently failed to comply with the applicable rules , despite receiving verbal and written reminders .

On DATE the applicant was reprimanded for continuing to wear the NORP headscarf while teaching . Finally , on CARDINAL DATE she was deemed to have resigned from her post under paragraph CARDINAL of the Disciplinary Procedure Rules , again on the ground that she had wilfully failed to comply with the Rules on Dress applicable to Staff in State Institutions ( PERSON ve kuruluşlarında çalışan personelin kılık - kıyafet yönetmeliği – “ the Rules on Dress ” ) .

On DATE she applied for an order setting aside the decision of CARDINAL May. She submitted , inter alia , that there was no statutory basis for the measure and that the relevant rules of procedure had not been followed .

On DATE a public hearing was held , which the applicant ’s counsel attended . On DATE , after deliberations , ORG rejected the applicant ’s application on the ground that the evidence in the investigation file showed that she had wilfully and persistently refused to comply with the rules on dress for public servants , despite being sent numerous reminders . It further found that the decision had been taken in accordance with the relevant procedural rules .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment of DATE . She explained that , although paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) of the Rules on Dress prohibited female members of staff from wearing the headscarf when performing their duties in educational institutions , the penalty prescribed by paragraph CARDINAL ( g ) of the Disciplinary Procedure Rules for breaches of the Rules on Dress was a warning . Consequently , she argued that the only penalty to which she should have been liable was a warning or a reprimand and that the penalty imposed on her was unduly harsh and incompatible with the rights and freedoms protected by LAW .

On DATE Law no . CARDINAL came into force . It provided for public servants to be given an amnesty in respect of penalties imposed for disciplinary offences and for any resulting disability to be annulled .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG ruled on the basis of PERSON no . CARDINAL that it was unnecessary to examine the merits of the applicant ’s appeal on points of law since she had received an amnesty in respect of the penalties that had been imposed on her and the resulting disabilities had been annulled .

However , on DATE the applicant exercised her right under PERSON no . CARDINAL to lodge an application for orders reviving the proceedings and setting aside the judgment of DATE . She also requested a hearing .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the judgment of DATE without holding a hearing .

The ORG does not have any precise information on developments since the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant were cancelled , thereby giving her an opportunity to request reinstatement . However , the material before it indicates that the applicant , who argues that she has not received any written notification from the ORG , has not , in fact , requested reinstatement .

Provisional LAW no . CARDINAL on ORG employees ( PERSON ) of DATE , which was published in ORG of DATE , requires public servants to comply with rules on dress laid down by statute , circulars or regulations . LAW provides that a failure by a public servant to comply with the rules will result in a warning and , in the event of a repeated breach , the “ maximum penalty ” .

The Rules on Dress applicable to Staff in State Institutions ( PERSON ve kuruluşlarında çalışan personelin kılık - kıyafet yönetmeliği ) were adopted on CARDINAL DATE and published in ORG of DATE . At the material time , paragraph CARDINAL provided :

“ Female members of staff

Clothes shall be clean , proper , ironed and plain . Shoes shall be plain , low - heeled and polished . No head covering shall be worn on work premises ; hair shall be properly brushed and gathered , and nails cut . Trousers , blouses , and sleeveless or open - necked suits are prohibited . Skirts shall not be split or less than knee - length . Open shoes ( sandals ) shall not be worn .

Male members of staff

Clothes shall be clean , proper , ironed and plain . Shoes shall be plain and polished ... No head covering shall be worn on work premises ... Male members of staff shall not wear a beard and must shave DATE ... Ties shall be obligatory . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Disciplinary Procedure Rules for Public Servants and Administrators in ORG sets out a list of the disciplinary penalties , namely a warning , a reprimand , suspension from administrative duties , loss of salary , ineligibility for promotion , deemed resignation and dismissal from office . Paragraph CARDINAL ( g ) lays down that the penalty for failing to comply with the Rules on Dress shall be a warning and , in the event of a repeated breach , the “ maximum penalty ” .

The Amnesty for Public Servants and State Employees ( Disciplinary Penalties ) Act ( Law no . CARDINAL ) came into force on DATE . Section CARDINAL provided , inter alia , that persons on whom disciplinary penalties had been imposed before DATE would receive an amnesty and that the penalty would be expunged from their service record . LAW entitled those concerned to make an application within DATE after DATE the LAW came into force for an order reviving the proceedings .

Transitional section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE provides :

“ Choice of dress shall be free in institutions of higher education , provided that it does not contravene the law . ”


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 2;No separate issue under Art. 3;No separate issue under Art. 13;Violation of Art. 14 +2;No separate issue under Art. 14+3;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant was the mother and the second applicant was the brother of Mr ORG ( “ the victim ” ) , who was of GPE origin and DATE at the time of his death .

On TIME DATE , in the town of GPE , the victim was attacked by CARDINAL teenagers ( “ the assailants ” ) and beaten severely . He was also stabbed several times by CARDINAL of the assailants .

The victim was taken to a hospital after the attack but died on TIME , DATE .

As later submitted by the assailants , the attack was motivated by the victim 's GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE below ) .

All of the assailants were detained and questioned by the police on DATE of the attack , DATE . With CARDINAL exception , all were juveniles .

The assailants were all released after questioning , with the exception of PERSON ( “ the first assailant ” ) , who was DATE at the time . A knife had been found on him and CARDINAL of the other assailants , GPE and ORG , had implicated him as the person who had wielded the weapon . The first assailant was remanded in custody on suspicion of murder .

On DATE the assailants were again questioned by the police . GPE and ORG confirmed their statements to the effect that the first assailant had wielded the weapon . Thereupon , a preliminary investigation was opened against him and he was charged with murder stemming from an act of hooliganism ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He was then questioned , but declined to give a statement other than to confirm that the knife found on him was his own .

D.K. , who was DATE at the time , gave a statement on DATE , the relevant part of which reads :

“ ... [ We have been meeting ] with the boys regularly for DATE . We agree in advance where and when we will meet the next time , because we do not go to the same school ... We hate junkies and [ do not ] take drugs ... we [ also ] do not drink alcohol , either when we see each other or when we are apart ... We talk about films , music and have [ stated ] on many occasions that we hate Gypsies – we call them “ soot ” ( сажди ) and “ mangals ” ( мангали ) ... Blacks , NORP , NORP , all foreigners I hate . As for the NORP and the NORP [ , ] it is known that a high percentage of criminal offences are [ committed ] by NORP and NORP . At home I have heard my father talk about them that way ...

Last night ... we met ... as we had previously agreed . [ It was a ] simple gathering without any aim or idea of what we would do ... We went for a walk in the city [ park ] ... We [ then ] headed towards the train station ... [ Then ] down towards the road ... We passed by the bridge ... and were walking [ close to ] the tracks . We were just passing and I [ do not know ] who noticed the Gypsy first ... [ The Gypsy ] was QUANTITY away , we were on CARDINAL side of the road and he was on the other . We started walking after him ... The first to catch up with him was [ the first assailant ] and the PERSON asked him if he had [ the time ] . I do not think that anyone of us knew the Gypsy . [ The first assailant ] told him “ I have , I have ” and knocked his head against the wall . [ He ] held the Gypsy by the jacket from behind [ so ] that when he hit him the first time he did not [ collapse ] because [ the first assailant ] was holding him [ up ] . [ The first assailant ] turned him around immediately and knocked him [ once ] again [ against ] the wall . I think he hit him on the head again . [ ORG ] went over ... and kicked the Gypsy somewhere on the body . I did not see where . I and [ one of the others ] went over to [ them ] and [ we all ] brought the PERSON to the ground . [ He ] was not able to put up any resistance because everything happened very quickly . He was shouting , because he was hurt . I was not thinking about what the Gypsy was saying and I did not care . Personally , I wanted to beat him up and nothing more . I think that the others also just wanted to beat him up ... The others ... were [ also ] hitting the Gypsy . I saw them when they hit him . The Gypsy was on the floor and was not able to put up any resistance . I was doing what the others were doing and did not watch what they were doing ... At some point I saw that there was bleeding from his head . The blood was somewhere on [ his ] face . He was [ still ] moving ... the same night I had seen that [ the first assailant ] had a knife ... The knife is mine , [ but ] I gave it to [ the first assailant ] ... a long time before this [ night ] ... I did not know that [ that ] TIME [ the first assailant had ] the knife [ with him ] ...

... While we were walking [ behind ] the Gypsy [ and ] before we caught up with him [ , ] I saw that [ GPE ] ... said to the [ the first assailant ] “ Give me the knife ” and I saw that [ he ] took it out of his pants and gave it to him . I did not see where [ N.B. ] put the knife and whether it remained in his hand . [ But ] when we were hitting the Gypsy on the floor I saw how [ N.B. ] stabbed [ him ] with the knife in [ the buttocks ] area ... I saw that [ GPE ] plunged the knife several times into the body of the Gypsy [ , ] always in that part of his body . The PERSON was screaming . [ GPE ] did not say anything , he was not swearing . [ GPE ] made CARDINAL jabs ... [ T]he Gypsy was still moving . Blood began to flow from the place where [ GPE ] had [ stabbed him ] ... The rest of us were continuing to hit ... the Gypsy while [ GPE ] was stabbing him ... The Gypsy had not provoked us in any way [ , ] neither with words nor with actions ... We beat him because he was a Gypsy ... He had had enough . I saw that he was not bleeding profusely ... We did not want to kill him , just to beat him up ... I am not sure that only [ GPE ] used the knife , but I can not indicate that any one of the others used it . I did not see another [ person using it ] ...

I still do not know what happened to this person , whether he is [ still ] alive ... We have beaten up NORP [ before ] and we [ always ] hear what happens [ to them ] ... ” .

An autopsy of the victim was performed on DATE . It established that he had been stabbed CARDINAL times in the left outer thigh and twice in the abdominal cavity which resulted in the severance of the ischiadic nerve , the profunda femoris artery ( deep artery of the thigh ) , the main intestine and the urethra . He also had bruises and contusions to his face and the back of his head . The autopsy concluded that the cause of death was massive internal loss of blood , resulting from the severance of the profunda femoris artery .

On DATE , DATE , the investigator commissioned a medical expert 's report to establish the victim 's wounds , whether any of them were in the stomach area , how they had been inflicted , what force had been used and whether his death had been inevitable or whether it could have been avoided by timely specialised medical assistance . It is unclear what was established by the medical expert .

On DATE and DATE CARDINAL of the assailants , GPE , ORG , GPE and GPE , were charged with hooliganism of exceptional cynicism and impudence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They were questioned in the presence of their lawyers and then released into their parents ' charge .

D.K. confirmed his previous statement but denied knowing anything about the stabbing of the victim . He was unable to determine whether he was guilty or not .

S.H. , who was DATE at the time , pled guilty to the offence with which he had been charged . He expressed his hatred for NORP and stated that the group had purposefully looked for someone from that minority group to attack . ORG retracted his previous statement of DATE in respect of who had perpetrated the stabbings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and implicated GPE as having been responsible . As to why he was changing his testimony , he claimed that the members of the group had had an understanding always to implicate the first assailant if they were ever caught , which the latter had apparently suggested and condoned .

N.R. , who was DATE at the time , also pled guilty to the offence with which he had been charged . He also confirmed that they had purposefully looked for a Gypsy to attack , retracted his statement of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and implicated GPE as having stabbed the victim .

N.B. ( “ the second assailant ” ) , who was DATE at the time , pled guilty to the offence with which he had been charged but denied any knowledge of the stabbings or of having perpetrated them .

On DATE , who was DATE at the time , was charged with hooliganism of exceptional cynicism and impudence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and questioned in the presence of his lawyer . He was then released but a restriction was placed on him not to leave his place of residence without authorisation from ORG . In his statement , he pled guilty to the offence with which he had been charged and confirmed the attack was motivated by the victim 's GPE ethnicity but was unable to indicate who had perpetrated the stabbings .

The seventh member of the group , PERSON was never charged as he did not participate in the attack on the victim .

Also on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL witnesses were questioned , CARDINAL of whom was ORG , a member of the group who had not been present during the attack on DATE . He gave a statement to the investigation that he had met the first assailant later on TIME and that the latter had confided in him that the second assailant had stabbed a Gypsy whom they had attacked but that he had taken the knife from him after the attack . ORG also stated that in a subsequent conversation with the second assailant on DATE , the latter had inquired what kind of sentence he might receive if he were to confess but that he was scared to do so for fear of being sent to a juvenile correctional facility . The other witness , GPE , gave a statement attesting to the aforementioned conversation .

On DATE the first assailant was questioned again . He confirmed that the group had purposefully looked for a Gypsy to assault on TIME of DATE . The first assailant also stated that he had given GPE his knife before the attack and that the latter had stabbed the victim , but that there had been no prior warning or agreement about the incident . Lastly , the first assailant confirmed that he had taken the knife back from GPE after the attack and that there had been a general understanding in the group that he would take responsibility if they were ever to get caught , but that it had not been agreed for this instance in particular .

On DATE ORG found that there was a lack of evidence that the first assailant had stabbed the victim , dismissed the charges against him and released him .

NORP The charges against the first assailant were amended on DATE and , like the other members of the group , he was charged with hooliganism of exceptional cynicism and impudence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . A restrictive measure was imposed on him whereby he was placed under the supervision of an inspector from ORG ( инспектор към Детска педагогическа стая ) . He was also questioned in the presence of his lawyer , pled not guilty to the offence with which he had been charged and reiterated his statement of DATE .

On DATE GPE and ORG were charged with having made false statements to the investigation authorities on DATE , accusing the first assailant of the offence of murder , which resulted in charges being brought against him ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . They were questioned and then released into the charge of their parents .

On DATE the second assailant was charged with negligent homicide resulting from an inflicted median bodily injury ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He pled not guilty to the offence and insisted that he had not stabbed the victim .

Due to their conflicting testimonies , a confrontation was organised on DATE between the second assailant , GPE and ORG each confirmed their previous statements .

On DATE the results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the first and second assailants .

On DATE the investigator in charge concluded in a report ( обвинително заключение ) that there was sufficient evidence against the assailants to obtain a conviction and that the case should proceed to trial . It is unclear when and whether the case file was transferred to the competent ORG .

A little more than DATE on DATE , a confrontation was organised between the second assailant and ORG during which they confirmed their previous statements to the investigation .

On several occasions during the course of the preliminary investigation the applicants approached the investigator in charge with requests for information on the progress of the case . They were either refused information or were provided with scant details . Sometime in DATE the lawyer of the applicants was granted access to the case file .

A confrontation was organised on DATE between the second assailant and GPE , during which they confirmed their previous statements to the investigation .

On DATE the second assailant petitioned the investigator to commission a medical report into his state of health , as he claimed to be suffering from a serious incurable disease . Such a report was ordered on DATE . The resulting medical report of CARDINAL DATE established that the second assailant suffered from chronic pyelonephritis and back pain , which were typical for teenagers and would be naturally outgrown .

On DATE the applicants filed a request with the investigator to be recognised as civil claimants in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the investigator commissioned a psychiatric evaluation of the second assailant . The resulting report , of an unknown date , found that he did not suffer from any serious psychiatric condition and that on DATE of the attack his illnesses did not affect his understanding of the nature and consequences of his actions nor his ability to control them .

On DATE the applicants filed a complaint with ORG , alleging that the investigation was being protracted . No apparent action was taken in response to their complaint .

A confrontation was organised on DATE between the second assailant and GPE , at which they gave conflicting testimony in respect of a conversation they had had shortly after the attack on the subject of whether to blame the first assailant for the stabbing .

On DATE the investigator recognised the first applicant as a civil claimant in the criminal proceedings .

DATE and DATE the results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the second assailant , the other CARDINAL accused and the first applicant .

On DATE the investigator in charge concluded in a new report that the case should proceed to trial , but proposed that the charges for falsely incriminating the first assailant be dismissed . The case file was transferred to ORG on an unspecified date .

On DATE ORG remitted the case with instructions that PERSON be questioned concerning the reasons why the group had initially blamed the first assailant for the stabbing , that the accused undergo psychiatric evaluations as to whether or not on DATE of the attack they understood the nature and consequences of their actions and could control them , and that the charges against the second assailant be amended .

On DATE a confrontation was organised between the first and second assailants , at which they gave conflicting testimony in respect of who had had the knife at the time of the attack .

On DATE PERSON was questioned and gave a statement that there had not been a prior understanding in the group that the first assailant would always take the blame , but that following the attack the group had met and the first assailant had informed them that he would take responsibility for what had happened .

On DATE PERSON was questioned but declined to answer any questions .

The first assailant was questioned on DATE and gave a statement attesting to the physical state of the second assailant at the time of the attack , the history of their relationship and his lack of knowledge as to any collusion by the other members of the group to help him by changing their respective testimonies .

The charges against the second assailant were amended on DATE and a restriction was placed on him not to leave his place of residence without authorisation from ORG . He was questioned and reiterated his previous statement that he had not been in possession of a knife during the attack and that he had not stabbed the victim . The results of the preliminary investigation were also presented to the second assailant on DATE .

DATE and DATE the results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the other CARDINAL accused and the first applicant .

On DATE the investigator in charge concluded in a new report that the case should proceed to trial . The case file was transferred to ORG on an unspecified date .

There was no development in the criminal proceedings during the following DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the charges of hooliganism of exceptional cynicism and impudence and of falsely incriminating someone before the authorities against all of the assailants who had been juveniles at the time of the attack DATE namely the first and second assailants , GPE , ORG and DATE because the statute of limitation had expired in respect of them . Relying on the evidence collected and the tests conducted in the course of the preliminary investigation , ORG argued that the first assailant had stabbed the victim , given that he had had the knife and the victim 's blood had been found on his clothes . It therefore dismissed the charges against the second assailant for negligent homicide resulting from an inflicted median bodily injury and remitted the case for further investigation , with instructions that the first assailant be again charged with murder stemming from an act of hooliganism ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . The only other remaining accused was G.R.G. , who had been DATE at the time of the attack and who continued to be charged with hooliganism of exceptional cynicism and impudence as the statute of limitation had not expired in respect of him ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicants and the victim 's CARDINAL sisters filed a request with the authorities to be recognised as civil claimants in the criminal proceedings and claimed CARDINAL NORP levs ( MONEY ) in damages .

On DATE the applicants ' lawyer met with a prosecutor from ORG who informed him that the case file had been requested and was being held by ORG .

The ORG has been informed of no further developments in the criminal proceedings .

For the offence of murder stemming from an act of hooliganism LAW , as in force in DATE , envisaged a sentence of DATE imprisonment , life imprisonment or death ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) . In DATE the death penalty was replaced with “ life imprisonment without the possibility of substitution ” . For juveniles aged from DATE , the sentence was DATE imprisonment ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) and for those from DATE imprisonment ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . The statute of limitation was QUANTITY years for juveniles aged from DATE ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with § CARDINAL and LAW ) and DATE for those aged from DATE ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW and LAW ) .

For negligent homicide resulting from an inflicted median bodily injury , LAW envisaged a sentence of DATE imprisonment ( LAW ) , which for juveniles aged DATE was DATE imprisonment ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . The statute of limitation for such juveniles was CARDINAL - and - a - half years ( LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW and LAW ) .

For hooliganism of exceptional cynicism and impudence , LAW envisaged a sentence of DATE imprisonment ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) , which for juveniles aged DATE was DATE imprisonment ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) . The statute of limitation for such juveniles was CARDINAL - and - a - half years ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW and LAW ) .

For making false statements to the authorities incriminating someone in having committed an offence , as a result of which charges were brought against that individual , LAW envisaged a sentence of DATE imprisonment ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) , which for juveniles aged DATE was DATE imprisonment ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . The statute of limitation for such juveniles was CARDINAL - and - a - half years ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW and LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW criminalises the propagation and incitement of hostility and hatred , as well as violence based , inter alia , on racial grounds . The relevant part of the LAW provides :

“ CARDINAL . [ A person ] who propagates or incites towards racial ... hostility or hatred , or towards racial discrimination , shall be punished with imprisonment of DATE and a public reprimand .

NORP [ A person ] who [ resorts to ] violence against another or damages [ his / her ] property because of [ his / her ] ... race ... shall be punished with imprisonment of DATE and a public reprimand .

NORP [ A person ] who forms or leads an organisation or group , the set goal of which is the perpetration of an offence under the preceding paragraphs , shall be punished with imprisonment of DATE and a public reprimand .

A member of such an organisation or group shall be punished with imprisonment of DATE and a public reprimand . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW criminalises , inter alia , racially motivated mob violence . The relevant part of the LAW provides :

“ CARDINAL . Persons who participate in a mob rallied in order to attack groups of [ people ] , individuals or their property because of their ... racial affiliation shall be punished [ as follows ] :

( CARDINAL ) the instigators and leaders DATE with imprisonment of DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP the remainder DATE with imprisonment of DATE or probation .

NORP If the mob or some of its participants are armed , the punishment shall be :

( CARDINAL ) for the instigators and leaders DATE imprisonment of DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) for the remainder DATE imprisonment of DATE .

NORP If an attack is carried out and , as a result , a serious bodily injury or death occurs , the instigators and leaders shall be punished with imprisonment of DATE , while the remainder shall be punished with imprisonment of DATE , unless they are subject to a more severe punishment . ”

Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the Criminal Code criminalise racially motivated genocide and apartheid .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that domestic courts are to take into account , inter alia , the motives of the perpetrator when determining the sentence to be imposed .

Article CARDINAL , as in force at the relevant time , provided that criminal proceedings concerning publicly prosecutable offences could only be initiated by a prosecutor or an investigator , acting on a complaint or ex officio . The offences with which the assailants were charged were publicly prosecutable offences .

Under LAW , as worded until DATE , a victim had a right of appeal to a higher ranking prosecutor against a decision not to proceed with pending criminal proceedings . After DATE the victim had the right of appeal against such a decision by a prosecutor to the domestic courts . The victim had no other means to challenge a refusal to prosecute .

Victims of crime , or their successors , had the right to join the criminal proceedings as civil claimants and , in that connection , to claim damages , inspect the case file , make copies of relevant documents , adduce evidence , raise objections and make applications ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . They had the right to appeal against decisions of the courts which impinged on their rights and interests , which right they also had in respect of decisions of the investigating and prosecuting authorities until DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

LAW introduced separate rights in the criminal proceedings for victims or their heirs , such as the right to participate in them , to be informed of their progress and to appeal against decisions terminating or suspending them ( Articles DATE ) .

DATE . Victims of crime or their heirs have the right to join criminal proceedings as civil claimants and , in that connection , to claim damages , inspect the case file , make copies of relevant documents , adduce evidence , raise objections and make applications ( Articles CARDINAL § DATE ) . They also have the right to appeal against decisions of the courts which impinge on their rights and interests ( LAW ) .

The Protection against Discrimination Act was passed in DATE and entered into force on DATE . It is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to create machinery providing effective protection against discrimination . It applies mainly in the spheres of labour relations , ORG administration and the provision of services . The LAW created a ORG with jurisdiction , inter alia , to hear individual complaints ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the shifting of the burden of proof in discrimination cases . Under that section , where a claimant is able to prove facts from which an inference might be drawn that there had been discriminatory treatment , it is incumbent on the defendant to prove that there had not been a violation of the right to equal treatment .

Once successful before the ORG , a plaintiff can initiate a tort action for damages before the domestic courts ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . If the damages were caused to a private person as a result of an unlawful act , action or inaction by ORG bodies or officials , the action for damages has to be filed under LAW ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . No relevant case - law was presented by the parties or was identified as having been reported , to indicate whether or how frequently the aforementioned provision has been utilised in obtaining redress for acts of discrimination from ORG bodies and officials .

The ORG and ORG of DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) provides that ( a ) the ORG and municipalities are liable for damage caused to private and juridical persons by the illegal orders , actions or omissions of government bodies and officials acting within the scope of , or in connection with , their administrative duties ; and ( b ) that in certain cases the ORG is liable for damage caused to private persons by the organs of the investigation , the prosecution and the courts ( sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The relevant domestic law and practice under LAW ORG has been summarised in the case of PERSON v. PERSON ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL of the ORG provides , as relevant :

“ The ORG shall be liable for damage caused to [ private persons ] by the organs of ... the investigation , the prosecution , the courts ... for unlawful :

NORP detention ... , if [ the detention order ] has been set aside for lack of lawful grounds ;

NORP accusation of a crime , if the [ accused ] has been acquitted or the criminal proceedings have been terminated on the grounds that the actions were not perpetrated by the [ accused ] or that the actions do not constitute an offence , or because the criminal proceedings were opened after the statute of limitations expired or the actions were amnestied ;

NORP conviction of a crime ... , if the person concerned is subsequently acquitted ... ;

NORP imposition by a court of compulsory medical treatment ... , if [ the decision ] has been set aside for lack of lawful grounds ;

NORP imposition by a court of an administrative measure ... , if [ the decision ] has been set aside as unlawful ;

execution of an imposed sentence in excess of the set term or amount . ”

Persons seeking redress for damage occasioned by decisions of the investigating and prosecuting authorities or the courts in circumstances falling within the scope of the ORG have no claim under general tort law , as the LAW is a lex specialis and excludes the application of the general regime ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW ; решение № CARDINAL от DATE г. по гр.д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON and PERSON решение № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по т. гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG на ВКС ) .

DATE . The relevant international instruments and comparative law on racist violence has been summarised in paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG 's judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] ( ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

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

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

On DATE the applicant brought an action for damages against an agricultural cooperative before ORG ( okresní soud ) , relying on LAW .

In a judgment of DATE ORG partly granted the applicant ’s claims .

On DATE ORG ( krajský soud ) partly quashed and partly upheld this judgment . The relevant part case was remitted to ORG which , on DATE , dismissed the remaining claims of the applicant ’s action .

On DATE ORG quashed the first instance judgment and sent the case back to ORG which , by a judgment of DATE , partly granted the outstanding part of the applicant ’s action for damages .

In the mean - time , on DATE , ORG had granted the defendant ’s request for re - opening of proceedings in respect of the valid part of the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the defendant went bankrupt . The proceedings for damages were therefore interrupted pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings . The applicant submitted her creditor ’s claims of CARDINAL CARDINAL CARDINAL CZK CARDINAL CARDINAL ( ORG ) which were partly granted on DATE . It appears that the bankruptcy proceedings are still pending .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .