coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ankara.
5.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Ankara. On an unspecified date, the applicant brought a case before the Ankara Administrative Court against the Çankaya Municipality and the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality for the annulment of the construction permit pertaining to a neighboring building which was being built opposite his apartment.
6.  On 14 December 1999 the Ankara Administrative Court accepted the applicant’s request and revoked the construction permit based on a breach of height restrictions. According to this judgment, the building in question was constructed 1.48 meters higher than the norm that was laid down in the zoning plan in force.
7.  On 17 February 2000 the Çankaya municipal executive committee (belediye encümeni) ordered the demolition of the illegally constructed part of the building in order to comply with the administrative court’s judgment. However, it did not implement the said decision.
8.  On 19 November 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the administrative court’s judgment.
9.  In the meantime, on 3 August 2001 the Çankaya municipal council (belediye meclisi) amended the zoning plan and sent its decision to the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality for approval.
10.  On 26 October 2001 the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality withheld its approval, holding that the zoning plan had been amended with the aim of legalizing the previously revoked building permit and thereby avoiding the demolition of the illegal construction.
11.  On 5 December 2001 the Çankaya municipal council insisted in its previous decision and the amended zoning plan thus came into force.
12.  Subsequently on 31 December 2001 the applicant brought a case before the Ankara Administrative Court for the annulment of the Çankaya municipal council’s decision of 5 December 2001.
13.  On 31 March 2003 the Ankara Administrative Court annulled the said decision for, inter alia, encouraging unlicensed construction practices.
14.  On 21 February 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the administrative court’s decision and on 18 October 2005 it rejected the Çankaya Municipality’s rectification request. This decision was served on the applicant on 13 December 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Čačak.
5.  On 7 September 2005 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Kotor seeking redress regarding various contractual issues.
6.  On 4 December 2008 the Court of First Instance in Kotor ruled in favour of the applicant.
7.  On 17 November 2009 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica upheld this judgment on appeal.
8.  On 20 May 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the previous judgments and ordered a re-trial.
9.  On 12 August 2011 the Court of First Instance in Kotor ruled against the applicant. This judgment was upheld by the High Court in Podgorica and the Supreme Court on 6 April 2012 and 12 September 2012 respectively.
10.  The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 20 October 2012.
11.  The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal on 28 November 2012.
12.  On 30 June 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 25 September 2015.
4.  The applicants are a family. They were born in 1971, 1968, 1992, 1995, and live in Samara.
5.  On 26 April 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Samara (“the Oktyabrskiy District Court”) ordered, inter alia, the management of the State unitary enterprise “16th Military Plant” (“the company”) to provide the applicants with a suitable dwelling, while keeping their names on the list of persons awaiting housing.
6.  On 11 May 2004 the judgment came into force.
7.  On 28 May 2004 the Department of the Bailiffs’ Service for Oktyabrskiy District of Samara opened the enforcement proceedings.
8.  On 22 December 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the company had no available residential accommodation.
9.  On 1 October 2007, due to the reorganisation of the company (see paragraph 16 below), the enforcement file was sent to the Department of the Bailiffs’ Service for the Engelsskiy District of Saratov Region.
10.  On 21 April 2008 the bailiffs ruled that it was impossible to enforce the judgment in the part relating to the housing, as the new debtor, FGUP 9 TSARZ (see paragraph 16 below), had no available accommodation. The enforcement proceedings were terminated.
11.  On 26 August 2009 the Engelsskiy District Court of Saratov Region, following the bailiffs’ application, replaced the debtor in the enforcement proceedings from FGUP 9 TSARZ to OAO 9 TSARZ (see paragraph 17 below).
12.  On 14 October 2009 the Oktyabrskiy District Court clarified the judgment of 26 April 2004 stating that the applicants should be provided with an apartment in Samara.
13.  Several times in 2004-2011 the parties applied to the Oktyabrskiy District Court for changing the mode of enforcement of the judgment. Each time the courts rejected the applications finding that a payment of the amount representing the cost of an apartment would be equal to modifying the original judgment.
14.  The judgment of 26 April 2004 remained unenforced.
15.  The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise. According to its articles of association, the company’s aim was to produce goods and render services for the Ministry of Defense of Russia, as well as for meeting other public needs and making a profit.
16.  Under the Order of the Federal Agency for State Property Management dated 22 September 2005 the company was joined to FGUP 9 TSARZ (FGUP 9 Tsentralnyy Avtomobilnyy Remontnyy Zavod – ФГУП 9 ЦАРЗ or ФГУП 9 Центральный Автомобильный Ремонтный Завод). The reorganisation was completed on 13 February 2007, and the latter company became the universal successor of the company.
17.  In accordance with the Decree of the President of Russia of 15 September 2008 and the Decree of the Russian Government of 22 November 2008, FGUP 9 TSARZ was further reorganized into OAO 9 TSARZ, a publicly-traded private open joint-stock company incorporated under the laws of Russia.
5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod.
6.  On 25 October 2002 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison (“the Military Court”) ordered, inter alia, the head of the respondent military institute to re-calculate the period of the applicant’s service, applying the favourable terms of such calculation for a specified period of service. The applicant was also awarded some additional allowances and payments for certain periods.
7.  The judgment came into force on 5 November 2002.
8.  On 3 March 2003 the Military Court issued a writ of execution. On 4 August 2003 the bailiffs’ service instituted the enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 19 September 2003 the enforcement proceedings were terminated and the writ of execution was returned to the applicant, as the debt could not be recovered.
10.  On 13 November 2003 the head of the respondent military institute issued Order No. 463 requiring to make payments in accordance with the judgment of 25 October 2002. However, no calculations or payments were made at that time.
11.  On 4 February 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury.
12.  On 18 May 2005 the writ was returned to the applicant on the ground that the judgment obliged an official of an organisation to take certain actions rather than ordered to recover payments from a budgetary organisation. Thus, the writ of execution was to be submitted to the bailiffs’ service.
13.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs’ service.
14.  On 14 April 2006 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant from the bailiffs’ service without enforcement. The bailiffs explained that for the applicant to be able to receive the payments under the judgment, he should obtain a writ of execution stating the sum of the debt to be recovered. After that, the writ could be submitted to the Federal Treasury for enforcement.
15.  In 2005 in accordance with Order No. 463, the defendant military institute calculated the amounts due to the applicant as follows: the compensation for the supplementary ration for the period from October 1998 until March 2000 –11,341.85 Russian roubles (RUB); allowance for special regime of the service in 1998-2002 – RUB 2,720.1; and special allowance – RUB 327,000. In total: RUB 341,061.95.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Čurug.
5.  On 2 August 2002 the applicant and one of his colleagues (hereinafter “the plaintiffs”) instituted civil proceedings against their employer seeking payment of salary arrears and other employment-related benefits.
6.  On 8 February 2013, after two remittals the First Instance Court in Novi Sad, specifically its Detached Section in Bečej, ruled partly in favour of the plaintiffs, ordering their employer to pay each of them specified sums in respect of salary arrears. The remainder of their claims was rejected.
7.  On 15 April 2013 the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad reversed a part of the above judgment, while upholding the remainder. This judgment was served on the plaintiffs on 6 June 2013.
8.  On 29 January 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal on points of law as the value of their respective claims was below the statutory threshold allowing for this remedy.
9.  On 9 April 2013 the plaintiffs lodged the constitutional appeal, complaining of a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the impugned proceedings. By its decision of 9 December 2015, the Constitutional Court found a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded each of them EUR 800 in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage suffered.
5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Melitopol.
6.  Between 2004 and 2006 the applicant was head of Melitopol City Council’s Disadvantaged Persons’ Welfare Centre (Центр по обслуговуванню одиноких, непрацездатних та малозабезпечених громадян Управління праці, соціального захисту та житлових субсидій Мелітопольської міської Ради – “the Centre”). On 21 April 2006 she was dismissed as part of a reorganisation of the Centre. Another person was subsequently appointed to a position similar to the one previously occupied by the applicant.
7.  In May 2006 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Melitopolskyy Local Court (“the Melitopolskyy Court”) seeking reinstatement, salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 24 October 2006 the court rejected the applicant’s claim. It found that the Centre had offered the applicant another position but that she had rejected this proposal, and that a more experienced person had been appointed as the head of the Centre. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 7 December 2006 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 24 October 2006. The applicant lodged a further appeal, and on 22 August 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed these decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. It held that the case was to be considered under the administrative justice procedure since it concerned a public-service dispute.
8.  Accordingly, the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the Melitopolskyy Court, which, on 21 February 2008, again found against her for reasons similar to those listed in its decision of 24 October 2006. The applicant appealed, and on 16 July 2008 the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal quashed this decision and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that it fell to be examined under the civil justice procedure as the applicant was not a public servant. On 2 March 2011 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine upheld this decision. On 14 April 2011 the same court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Ukraine against the decision of 2 March 2011.
9.  On 28 March 2011 the applicant again lodged a civil claim seeking reinstatement, salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 4 August 2011 the Melitopolskyy Court refused to examine the merits of the applicant’s civil claim as the applicant had sought to have adjourned previous court hearings in respect of her case on numerous occasions without good reason. On 5 October 2011 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Larnaca.
7.  Following his dismissal from Cyprus Airways Ltd as a trainee pilot, the applicant on 26 June 1998 brought a civil action before the District Court of Nicosia for wrongful dismissal and defamation (civil action no. 7562/98). The defendant company was represented by a law firm.
8.  On 29 December 2006 the court dismissed the action.
9.  On 9 February 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court (appeal no. 43/07). The appeal was tried by a bench of three judges.
10.  The hearing of the appeal was held on 11 March 2007. On that date the managing partner of the above-mentioned law firm, Mr P.G.P., appeared for the defendant company and addressed the Supreme Court. Up until that date, other lawyers from the firm had appeared before the appeal bench on behalf of the defendant company.
11.  On 21 April 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal unanimously.
12.  The applicant submitted that after the judgment of the Supreme Court was given, he discovered that the son of one of the judges sitting on the bench, Judge A.K., and the daughter of Mr P.G.P., were married and that both worked at the latter’s law firm. The lawyer representing him in the domestic proceedings had not requested the exemption of the judge in question because he had not had sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts at the time. The applicant had also not instructed his lawyer to do so as he had found out about this fact only after the appeal proceedings had ended.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in the Bolu F-type prison.
5.  On 25 January 2008 the applicant wrote a letter to the Ministry of Justice, in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed.
6.  Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicant was found guilty of breaching a prison order by the Bolu F-type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as “the board”).
7.  On 1 February 2008 the applicant was sentenced to 11 days’ solitary confinement on the orders of the Board, on account of his statements in the above-mentioned letter.
8.  On 26 February 2008 the Bolu Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant’s objection.
9.  On 11 March 2008 the Bolu Assize Court upheld the judgment of 26 February 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1989.
5.  On 27 December 2010 the applicant was arrested on drug-related charges and placed in custody.
6.  On 14 December 2012 the case was submitted for trial to the Voronezh Regional Court.
7.  On 11 July 2013 the court returned the case to the deputy Prosecutor General for remedying certain procedural defects.
8.  On 20 September 2013 the Investigations Department of the Federal Drug Control Service received the case file and forwarded it to its regional branch in St Petersburg.
9.  On 1 November 2013 an investigator asked the St Petersburg City Court to extend the applicant’s detention for a further four months, until 31 March 2014. On 8 November 2013 the City Court granted the application. The applicant filed an appeal. He pointed out that the maximum statutory time period for keeping him in pre-trial detention had expired a long time ago and that any further extensions had been unlawful.
10.  On 27 November 2013 the St Petersburg City Court rejected his appeal in a summary fashion, without examining his arguments in detail.
4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Sochi.
5.  On 27 November 2010 the applicant, a police captain, was arrested for soliciting a bribe. He was taken into custody and his detention was extended on several occasions. On 4 July 2011 the case was submitted for trial in the Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi.
6.  On 8 July 2011 the District Court determined that the case was not ready for trial and returned the file to the prosecutor. By the same decision, it extended the applicant’s detention until 10 August 2011.
7.  On 9 August 2011 the director of the IZ-23/2 remand prison where the applicant was held reported to the Sochi prosecutor and to the president of the Tsentralnyy District Court that, in the absence of an order extending the applicant’s detention beyond 10 August, he would need to be released on that date. On the same date the Sochi prosecutor replied to him that there were no grounds for releasing the applicant because the date for hearing the prosecutor’s appeal against the District Court’s order of 8 July had been fixed for 17 August. The applicant was not released on 10 August. He complained about his unlawful detention to the head of the Investigations Committee and the regional head of the Ministry of the Interior but did not receive any reply.
8.  On 17 August 2011 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the District Court’s order on appeal. As regards the custodial measure, it held that no extension had been necessary because by virtue of Article 255 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant could be held in custody for an initial six-month period starting from the date on which the case had been submitted for trial.
4.  The applicants, Mr Makhlyagin and Mr Belyayev, were born in 1983 and 1979 respectively and were held in different detention facilities. The facilities’ officials opened and/or inspected letters that the applicants exchanged with the Court.
5.  From September 2008 until October 2009 the applicant, detained in a correctional colony, lodged several letters with the Court. All of them were accompanied by cover letters from a chief officer of the colony summarising the content of the applicant’s letters. Some letters also bore the colony’s registration stamps.
6.  The applicant lodged a claim, alleging that the colony’s staff had impeded his correspondence with the Court. On 22 January 2009 the Tagilstroyevskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil dismissed his claim
7.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court. On 4 March 2009 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court rejected his appeal, stating that it should be lodged through the first-instance court. The regional court also noted that the applicant could request that the time-limit in respect of the appeal be re-set.
8.  On 30 March 2009 the applicant lodged his appeal with the first‑instance court. Instead of requesting that the time-limit in respect of his appeal be re-set the applicant asked the court to restore his case to the list of pending cases. On 9 April 2009 the District Court refused to examine the appeal as belated.
9.  The applicant appealed against this decision. However, he once again lodged his appeal with the Regional Court instead of the first-instance court. His appeal statement did not contain a request for the missed time‑limit to be re-set. The Sverdlovskiy Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
10.  On 2 November 2010 the applicant received a letter from the Court; the letter was opened by a member of the remand prison staff.
11.  The applicant lodged a claim for compensation. By a final decision of 7 June 2011 the Tver Regional Court dismissed his claim. The court stated that Russian law did not prohibit the opening of incoming correspondence from the Court.
4.  The applicant is a professor of law at a private university in Skopje. She holds a doctoral degree in the field of criminal law.
5.  On 14 January 2010 the applicant lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) in order to be recognised as having the same status as a person who had passed the BAR examination (изедначување со правата на лицата кои положиле правосуден испит). As she did not obtain a decision, she lodged two further requests, on 24 November 2011 and 6 February 2012.
6.  On 11 April 2012 the Ministry rejected her request, holding that she did not meet the relevant criteria to obtain such recognition. In particular, the Ministry found that although she was a professor of law at a university, she did not hold a bachelor’s degree in law (дипломиран правник на правен факултет). The Ministry further found that the bachelor’s degree which she had obtained had been awarded by the Faculty of Security and Social Defence (Факултет за безбедност и општествена самозаштита), and not by a faculty of law, as required.
7.  On 10 May 2012 the applicant brought an action with the Administrative Court (Управен суд), challenging the refusal. She argued that as a university professor at a faculty of law she met the relevant criteria.
8.  On 30 May 2013 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that regardless of her current status, she did not meet the criteria to obtain the desired recognition under domestic law. In particular, it established that the applicant did not hold a bachelor’s degree in law, which was a condition for the recognition she sought.
9.  On 23 September 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Higher Administrative Court (Виш управен суд). She argued that she met the relevant criteria and that the lower court had failed to properly interpret the procedural and substantive law in the case.
10.  On an unspecified date, the Ministry submitted observations to the Higher Administrative Court concerning the applicant’s case. The Ministry stated in the observations that the right to obtain recognition as having the same status as a person who had passed the BAR examination was dependent on having a bachelor’s degree issued by a faculty of law. The applicant did not possess such a degree and had therefore failed to meet the criteria under domestic law. Those observations were not communicated to the applicant.
11.  On 30 January 2014 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, reiterating in full the reasons provided by the Administrative Court. It restated that the recognition sought by the applicant was dependent on her having a bachelor’s degree issued by a faculty of law, a condition which she had failed to meet.
12.  The decision was served on the applicant on 19 May 2014.