coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, refer to the same context and domestic criminal proceedings as those described in the case Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011).
6.  During the events which led to the fall of the communist regime, on the night of 21/22 December 1989 the applicant’s son was killed by gunfire in Bucharest.
7.  In 1990 the military prosecutor’s office opened several investigations into the December 1989 armed crackdown on the anti-communism demonstrations. A main criminal investigation concerning the use of violence against civilians in Bucharest and other cities was registered with the highest prosecutor’s office – the military prosecutors section − under no. 97/P/1990 (current number 11/P/2014). In the main criminal investigation the applicant raised civil claims and asked that the perpetrators of the offence of homicide committed against her son be identified and punished.
8.  At the same time, another investigation concerning the offences of complicity in seriously aggravated homicide and complicity in attempted seriously aggravated homicide, committed against a large number of persons, including the applicant’s son, culminated in the committal for trial of public officials, members of the ruling political party, and their subsequent conviction by a final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 20 April 1992.
9.   The relevant procedural steps taken in the main criminal investigation were described in the cases Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and Sidea and Others v. Romania ([Committee] no. 889/15, §§ 8-11, 5 June 2018).
10.  On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor’s office closed the main criminal investigation, finding that the applicant’s complaint regarding the offence of homicide committed against her son was statute-barred and that a complaint concerning instigation of homicide was a matter of res judicata following the Supreme Court of Justice’s decision of 20 April 1992 (see paragraph 8 above).
11.  The decision of 14 October 2015 was subsequently annulled by a Prosecutor General’s decision of 5 April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the opening of a criminal investigation in rem for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same factual circumstances.
12.  According to the information submitted by the parties, the main criminal investigation is still ongoing (see Bănuțoiu and Ștefoglu v. Romania [Committee], nos. 64752/13 and 54607/14, § 12, 3 July 2018).
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow.
5.  S. was the owner of a one-room flat located at 6-60, Smolenskaya Street, Moscow. On 7 February 2008 S. died.
6.  An unidentified person presenting a passport in the name of M. and claiming that she was S.’s sister and heir applied to G., a notary, seeking the recognition of her rights in respect of the flat. In support of her claim she submitted a copy of her birth certificate.
7.  On 18 March 2009 G. issued a certificate confirming, inter alia, M.’s title to the flat. The city authorities registered M.’s title to the flat in the State land register.
8.  On 19 May 2009 an unidentified person posing as M. sold the flat to the applicant. According to the documents submitted by the applicant, the purchase price was 6,499,999 Russian roubles (RUB). The city authorities registered the sale of the flat and the applicant’s title to it in the State land register.
9.  On an unspecified date the police opened a criminal investigation into the fraudulent acquisition of the flat. It was established that the document presented to the notary as M.’s birth certificate had been forged.
10.  On 23 September 2009 the police informed the Department of Housing and Housing Policy of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department”) of the pending criminal investigation.
11.  On 1 December 2009 the Housing Department brought an action seeking the transfer of the applicant’s flat to the City of Moscow (“the City”).
12.  On 11 March 2010 the criminal investigation was suspended.
13.  On 27 December 2010 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow allowed the Housing Department’s action. It reasoned that M. had died intestate with no surviving kin and that her flat should have been considered bona vacantia. It annulled the applicant’s title to the flat and ordered its transfer to the City of Moscow.
14.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 14 July 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 27 December 2010.
15.  On an unspecified date the judgments of 27 December 2010 and 14 July 2011 were enforced. Subsequently the City of Moscow sold the flat to a private party under a social assistance scheme that permitted the buyer to pay the purchase price in instalments.
16.  On 12 October 2017 the criminal investigation into the fraudulent acquisition of the flat was reopened.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Yerevan.
5.  On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia, which was followed by daily protest rallies held at Yerevan’s Freedom Square from 20 February onwards by the supporters of the main opposition candidate, Mr Ter-Petrosyan. The applicant was the head of Mr Ter‑Petrosyan’s election headquarters in the town of Abovyan and regularly attended the rallies. On 1 March 2008 the assembly at Freedom Square was dispersed by the police, causing mass protests throughout Yerevan.
6.  On 8 March 2008 the applicant was summoned to a local police station in Abovyan where he was questioned about the leaflets that he had prepared and distributed among the demonstrators during the rallies.
7.  On 11 March 2008 the applicant was charged with organising mass disorder and an attempt to usurp State power.
8.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (the District Court) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of two months, namely until 8 May 2008, taking into account the nature and the gravity of the imputed offence and the severity of the punishment prescribed for it. By the same decision the District Court refused the applicant’s request to be released on bail.
9.  On 14 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that the investigating authority had not presented any evidence to substantiate the need for his detention.
10.  On 21 March 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the applicant’s appeal, holding that the fact that the applicant had been accused of a grave offence punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment increased the probability of his evading criminal punishment. Furthermore, it was unacceptable to release the applicant on bail in view of the fact that, if at large, the applicant could abscond, obstruct the proceedings, commit another offence, evade responsibility and punishment, and continue to breach public order. As to the applicant’s good character, mentioned by him in his appeal, this was not sufficient to justify lifting the detention order.
11.  On 4 May, 2 July, 3 September and 30 October 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention on the same grounds, on each occasion by two months.
12.  On 19 May, 18 July, 19 September and 16 November 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals against those decisions.
13.  On 10 December 2008 the trial court decided to set the case down for trial, ruling in the same decision that the applicant’s detention was to remain unchanged.
14.  On 22 June 2009 the District Court found the applicant guilty of making public calls inciting a violent overthrow of the government, and imposed a two-year sentence. It further decided to absolve the applicant from serving his sentence under a general amnesty declared by the Armenian parliament on 19 June 2009. The applicant was immediately released from detention.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Jrvezh.
5.  On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia, which was followed by daily protest rallies held at Yerevan’s Freedom Square from 20 February onwards by the supporters of the main opposition candidate. On 1 March 2008 the assembly at Freedom Square was dispersed by the police. The applicant, who was present at Freedom Square at that time, was arrested and later charged under Article 316 § 1 of the Criminal Code (CC) with assaulting police officers.
6.  On 4 March 2008 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of two months, namely until 1 May 2008, on the ground that the applicant, if at large, might abscond and obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the criminal proceedings.
7.  On 10 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that there was no evidence to substantiate the need for his detention. He was a former high-ranking police officer and a law-abiding citizen who enjoyed trust and respect in society.
8.  On 21 March 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fact that the applicant was accused of a grave offence punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment increased the probability of his evading criminal liability and punishment and was sufficient to conclude that the applicant, if at large, might commit a new offence. As to the applicant’s good character, mentioned by him in his appeal, this was not sufficient for lifting the detention order.
9.  On 29 April 2008 the indictment was finalised and the applicant’s case was sent to court for trial. The applicant remained in detention by virtue of Article 138 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP).
10.  On 13 May 2008 the District Court decided to set the case down for trial, ruling in the same decision that the applicant’s detention was to remain unchanged. That decision was not subject to appeal.
11.  On 11 June 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 316 § 1 of the CC of assaulting police officers and sentenced him to a suspended term of one and a half years’ imprisonment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Łatanice.
6.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicant was detained in Kielce Remand Centre from 6 September to 4 October 2012 (28 days).
8.  The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in Kielce Remand Centre, he had been held in overcrowded cells in which the space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 m².
9.  In their observations, the Government admitted that the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell. However, they emphasised that the space in each cell had exceeded 2 m² per person and that the hardship caused by staying in an overcrowded cell had been compensated by adding 30 minutes to his daily walk as well as additional cultural and educational classes or sports activities.
10.  In the course of civil proceedings instituted by the applicant, the domestic courts established that for twenty-eight days the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell (see also paragraph 13 below).
11.  Regarding the conditions of detention, the domestic courts established that the overall conditions in cells were adequate. Cells were equipped in compliance with the relevant law; they were properly ventilated and the toilet area had been separated from the rest of the living space in the cells.
12.  On 12 August 2013 the applicant brought a civil action against the State Treasury for infringement of his personal rights and for compensation on account of his detention in overcrowded cells in various penitentiary facilities. He claimed 35,000 Polish zlotys (approximately 8,750 euros) in just satisfaction.
13.  On 28 May 2014 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s action. It confirmed, however, that temporarily (from 6 September to 4 October 2012) the applicant had been detained in cells in which the space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 m², but not below 2 m².
14.  On 1 April 2015 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
5.  The applicants were born in 1980 and 1986, respectively, and were detained at the Tekirdağ F-Type prison when the application was lodged.
6.  On 28 and 29 October 2005 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation.
7.  On 31 October 2005 the applicants were brought before a judge at the Istanbul Assize Court which ordered their detention on remand.
8.  On 23 December 2005 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of a terrorist organisation and illegal possession of explosives.
9.  On 26 December 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court held a preparatory hearing and ordered the continuation of the applicants’ detention.
10.  Throughout the proceedings the trial court ordered the continuation of the applicants’ detention on remand. Between the hearings, with regular intervals of one month, the court ex officio examined the applicants’ detentions on the basis of the case-file and decided to extend.
11.  At the end of the hearing held on 13 October 2008, the trial court decided once again to prolong the applicants’ detention. Although the applicants’ lawyer was present at this hearing, the applicants were not brought from prison to the court. Subsequently, their lawyer filed an objection against the decision of 13 October 2008. On 11 November 2008 the 13th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court dismissed the objection, without holding an oral hearing and based on the written opinions of the public prosecutor, which had not been communicated to the applicants or to their representative.
12.  On 23 December 2009 the court convicted the applicants and sentenced them to imprisonment. The court also ordered the continuation of the first applicant’s detention and the release of the second applicant.
13.  On 24 March 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Kragujevac.
6.  On 14 December 2006 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Kragujevac Clinical Centre requesting damages. In the course of the proceedings eleven hearings were held, whereas five hearings were scheduled, but were not held.
7.  On 20 May 2011 the applicant’s claim was rejected as unfounded by the Kragujevac Court of First Instance.
8.  On 26 December 2011 the Kragujevac Appellate Court (“the Appellate Court”) quashed the decision of 20 May 2011 and remitted the case to the first instance court.
9.  In the resumed proceedings the applicant sought recusal of the acting judge twice, but both of his motions were rejected.
10.  On 4 October 2012, after three held hearings and two hearings which were not held, expert examination and the increase of the applicants claim, the case was transferred to the Kragujevac High Court (“the High Court”).
11.  On 20 March 2013, following the applicant’s two other recusal requests, one of which was adopted, the High Court rejected the applicant’s damages claim as unfounded. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 21 August 2014 the Appellate Court rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 20 March 2013. Thereafter, the applicant filed an appeal on points of law, which was rejected by the Supreme Court of Cassation only on 21 December 2016.
13.  In the meantime, on 7 February 2013, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court complaining about the length of the pending civil proceedings, seeking non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 3,000 euros and publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court transferred the case-file to the Appellate Court, as a competent court to deal with the length complaints of the pending cases, pursuant to Article 8a of the Law on the Organization of the Courts. However, on 23 September 2014 the Appellate Court established that it no longer had jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s complaint since it found that the civil proceedings had been finished. The applicant’s case-file was thus returned to the Constitutional Court.
14.  On 6 November 2014 the Constitutional Court returned the case-file to the Appellate Court, which on 28 November 2014 again found that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the case. The Appellate Court then transferred the case-file further to the Supreme Court of Cassation, as the competent court. The applicant appealed.
15.  On 22 January 2015 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 28 November 2014. It also partially adopted the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings and awarded him 200 euros for non-pecuniary damage, whereas the rest of claim rejected.
16.  On 21 October 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in regards to the length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court established that even though the impugned proceedings had lasted seven years and eight months, they were very complex and the applicant largely contributed to its length, whereas the competent courts acted efficiently.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Štitare.
5.  On 30 May 2000 the Belgrade Third Municipal Court ordered a socially-owned company KMG Trudbenik (hereinafter “the debtor company”), based in Belgrade, to pay to the applicant a specified amount on account of salary arrears, plus the costs of the civil proceedings (judgment no. P1 863/99). This judgment became enforceable on 19 June 2000.
6.  On 13 March 2002, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Fourth Belgrade Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant’s enforcement costs (enforcement order no. I-VIII 101/2002).
7.  On 7 October 2003 the enforcement proceedings were suspended due to the institution of compulsory settlement proceedings before the Belgrade Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court”).
8.  On 9 December 2011 the Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company.
9.  On 6 March 2012 the applicant submitted his request for enforcement of the 30 May 2000 judgment (“enforcement request”) to the insolvency manager. The insolvency manager neither rejected the applicant’s claim nor forwarded it to the Commercial Court.
10.  On 24 February 2014 the applicant thus submitted his enforcement request with the Commercial Court, and on 1 October 2014 he supplemented it.
11.  On 6 August and 27 October 2014 the applicant complained about the inactivity of the acting judge in the insolvency proceedings.
12.  On 13 October 2014 the Commercial Court rejected the applicant’s enforcement request as having been lodged out of time.
13.  On 28 January 2015 the Commercial Appellate Court rejected the applicant’s appeal, and upheld the Commercial Court’s decision of 13 October 2014.
14.  On 24 March 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, complaining of the decision of 28 January 2015.
15.  However, on 19 May 2016 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal as unfounded.
5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Bratislava.
6.  On 20 December 2014 the Bratislava IV District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the context of criminal proceedings in which he was prosecuted for committing the criminal offence of manslaughter. The reason for his detention was the risk of reoffending.
7.  On 3 March 2015 the applicant submitted a request to the District Prosecution Office for release from pre-trial detention. In it, he asked for his detention to be replaced with supervision by a probation officer. The request was received by the latter on 4 March 2015 and dismissed on 5 March 2015, following which it was transferred to the District Court for a judicial determination.
8.  On 26 March 2015 the District Court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant’s request for release. The written version of that decision was served on the applicant on 14 April 2015 and, after several unsuccessful attempts at delivery, was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 21 April 2015.
9.  The applicant’s lawyer lodged a written interlocutory appeal with the District Court within the statutory three-day period, namely on 24 April 2015. The case file was transferred to the Bratislava Regional Court on 29 April 2015 and the applicant’s appeal was dismissed in chambers on 7 May 2015. The written version of that decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 18 May 2015.
10.  On 1 June 2015 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint, relying inter alia on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. He alleged that the authorities had not proceeded speedily with his request for release. He formally challenged the proceedings held before the District Curt, the decision of the Regional Court of 7 May 2015 and the proceedings preceding this decision. He also requested compensation of 2,000 euros (EUR) in addition to his legal costs and expenses.
11.  On 30 March 2016 the Constitutional Court declared the part of his complaint in respect of the proceedings held before the District Court admissible and the remainder inadmissible. The Constitutional Court held that it had found no irregularities in the Regional Court’s decision of 7 May 2015.
12.  On 21 June 2016 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right guaranteed under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. It did not award him any compensation or legal costs and expenses. The Constitutional Court scrutinised only the District Court’s proceedings and concluded that they had lasted 44 days. The District Court had therefore failed to deal with the applicant’s request speedily and to serve the written decision on him promptly. With respect to the financial compensation, the Constitutional Court referred to “the principle of fairness”, “the particular circumstances of the case”, the duration of the delays and the intensity of the interference, and concluded that the finding of a violation of the applicant’s right constituted a sufficient redress.