coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants are Turkish nationals, whose dates of birth and places of residence are shown in the appendix. They all own plots of land located in different cities of Turkey.
5.  Following local land development plans, the applicants’ plots of land were designated for public use. Subsequently, complaining about the decrease in the market value of the land and the long-term uncertainty about the fate of their plots of land, the applicants initiated compensation proceedings before the civil courts.
6.  During the proceedings relating to their land, the applicants submitted the decision given by the Plenary Chamber of the Court of Cassation (civil divisions, numbered E.2004/5-555 K.2005/17) to the domestic courts and asserted that according to this decision their compensation claims had to be accepted.
7.  On various dates between 2007 and 2010, the applicants’ respective claims for compensation were dismissed by the domestic courts on the ground that their plots of land were not actually seized by the authorities. In their decisions, neither the courts of first instance nor Fifth Civil Division of the Court of Cassation, which examined the applicants’ claims on cassation, expressed any reason as to why they had reached a different conclusion from the plenary Court of Cassation.
8.  The details of the proceedings may be found in the appended table.
5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and is currently being detained in a correctional colony in the village of Torbeyevo, Mordovia Republic, Russia.
6.  On 21 April 2005 the applicant was convicted during a public hearing of murder and was sentenced to imprisonment. He and his lawyer had had thirty-five minutes to study the case file, which consisted of five volumes. The conviction was upheld on appeal in a public hearing on 18 August 2005 (“the 2005 proceedings”).
7.  On 30 July 2010 the appeal judgment was quashed by way of a supervisory review (on grounds not related to the applicant’s Article 6 complaints in respect of the 2005 proceedings) as the applicant’s right to defence had been breached during the appeal hearing. The case was sent for fresh examination on appeal.
8.  The applicant was allowed to re-read the case file within the new appeal proceedings. He and his lawyer had five days, from 4 to 8 October 2010, to study the now six-volume case file (about 1,500 pages) in remand prison no. IZ-24/1 in Krasnoyarsk, where the applicant was being detained. The applicant was allegedly held in a metal cage while studying the case, without a table or any other facilities to take notes. After studying the case file both the applicant and the lawyer filed appeals. In his appeal statements the applicant analysed the case materials in detail, referred extensively to all the main items of evidence, including expert opinions and witness testimony, and referred to exact pages in the case file.
9.  The applicant’s case was examined by the Supreme Court of Russia (“the Supreme Court”) over four hearings, three of which (21 October, 30 November and 16 December 2010), according to the trial record and the court’s procedural decisions, were held in camera. The case file did not contain any formal decision by the Supreme Court to close the hearings to the public. The applicant was represented by two lawyers who confirmed to the court that they had had enough time to study the case file.
10.  On 16 December 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 21 April 2005. The Supreme Court’s judgment was delivered to the remand prison, where the applicant was still being detained, on 11 January 2011 (“the 2010 proceedings”).
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Yerevan.
5.  On 16 August 2004 he was charged with fraud in Armenia and the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court in Yerevan issued an arrest warrant.
6.  On 8 November 2006 the applicant was arrested in Ufa, Russia. On an unspecified date the Russian Prosecutor General received an extradition request from his Armenian counterpart.
7.  On an application a district prosecutor in Ufa, on 27 December 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court in Ufa remanded the applicant in custody, without setting a time-limit for his detention. On 13 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan upheld the detention order on appeal.
8.  On 23 March 2007 a deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request; on 17 July 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld that decision in final instance.
9.  On 24 August 2007 the applicant was extradited to Armenia where he was acquitted of all charges and released.
10.  On 16 February 2008, when attempting to return to Russia, the applicant was detained by the Russian border control and held in custody until 22 February 2008. The parties did not produce a record of the applicant’s arrest or any judicial decision authorising his detention.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Ercsi.
6.  On 28 February 2007 the applicant filed an action with the Székesfehérvár Labour Court against his former employer, claiming unlawful dismissal. On 6 June 2008 the court found in his favour and obliged the respondent to the action to pay him a severance payment, outstanding wages, a lump sum in compensation, and default interest.
7.  On appeal, on 25 February 2009 the Fejér County Regional Court changed the judgment in part. In June 2009 the respondent filed a petition for review.
8.  In an order of 2 June 2010 the Supreme Court forwarded the respondent’s petition to the applicant and informed him that, within eight days of receiving the order, he could file comments on the respondent’s petition and/or request an oral hearing.
9.  On 7 June 2010 the applicant received the order, and on 14 June 2010 he dispatched his comments on the petition for review. The document was received by the Supreme Court on 17 June 2010.
10.  Meanwhile, on 16 June 2010 the Supreme Court, sitting as a review court, had given a judgment in which it had reversed the previous decisions and dismissed the applicant’s action. The court stated that the applicant had not filed any comments on the petition for review.
11.  The applicant complained and addressed his complaint of 6 December 2010 to the President of the Supreme Court. The Head of the Civil Division informed him that his comments on the petition for review had been belated.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Groznyy in the Chechen Republic.
5.  On 23 June 2012 the applicant was arrested in connection with a drug-related offence and placed in custody.
6.  On 14 August 2012 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Groznyy found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment.
7.  On 14 November 2012 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.
8.  On 30 May 2013 the Oktyabrskiy District Court again convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The court stated that the “preventive measure [should] remain unchanged until the conviction [had become] final”.
9.  On 24 June 2013 counsel for the applicant asked the director of the remand prison to release the applicant since he had already served the one-year sentence. On the same day a judge of the District Court faxed a letter to the director, informing him that the applicant should not be released until the Supreme Court had examined the matter on appeal since the District Court ordered the preventive measure to remain unchanged.
10.  On 3 July 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the applicant was released.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in St Petersburg. She is the mother of the late Mr Denis Aleksandrovich Vyrzhikovskiy.
6.  On 1 October 2010 police officers apprehended the applicant’s son and his friend, Ms Z. and took them to the Moskovskiy District Department of the Interior of St Petersburg (УВД по Московскому району г. Санкт‑Петербурга). No record of their arrest was drawn up.
7.  For approximately six hours the applicant’s son was ill-treated by police officers He was repeatedly punched in the stomach and hit to the head, right palm and both calves. He was also subjected to the so-called “swallow” method of torture (“ласточка”), with his head, hands and legs being pulled together towards the spine.
8.  Two police officers then took the applicant’s son and Ms Z. to another police station. Ms Z. later testified to having seen a bruise on Mr Vyrzhikovskiy’s forehead and to his having been in pain and having had difficulties getting into a police car.
9.  Early in the morning on 2 October 2010 Mr Vyrzhikovskiy was taken from the station to a hospital. He died there eight days later. An autopsy report stated that the cause of death was “a severe fat pulmonary embolism aggravated by bronchopneumonia with cerebral edema resulted from a comminuted humeral head fracture with a tear of joint capsules and massive bruises, suffusion and strain of soft tissue and the subcutaneous fat layer.” A pathologist also found the following ante mortem injuries on Mr Vyrzhikovskiy’s body, all directly linked to his death: massive bruises covering hands, chest, upper back, neck, armpits and most of his face and ears; bruises on the left hip, right palm, right part of the stomach, right thigh, left knee, both calves; abrasions and bruises on the buttocks. All injuries had been inflicted by hard blunt objects.
10.  On 12 October 2010 criminal investigation was initiated. The applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. Several police officers were charged with manslaughter and abuse of powers entailing a substantial violation of individual rights, committed using violence.
11.  On 26 March 2014 the Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg found the officers guilty as charged and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. On 1 October 2014 the St Petersburg City Court partially quashed the judgment and acquitted officers of manslaughter for lack of evidence. While having found it established that the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant’s son intentionally in the police custody, the City Court remitted the case for an additional investigation in order to identify those responsible for his death.
12.  On 2 March 2015 the investigation was suspended because the time‑limit for the investigation had expired and it was impossible to identify the perpetrators and to carry out any investigative measures in the absence of an accused. On 12 November 2015 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg upheld that decision as lawful. The decision became final on 27 January 2016.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is detained in Nizhniy Tagil.
5.  On 20 January 2009 the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court in Yekaterinburg remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of fraud. The authorised detention period was subsequently extended on several occasions.
6.  On 16 February 2010 the District Court determined that the case was not ready for trial. It directed the prosecution to remedy certain defects and extended the authorised period of the applicant’s detention until 22 April 2010.
7.  On 21 April 2010 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court heard an appeal against that detention order and decided that the applicant could be released on bail. By a supplementary decision taken on the following day in the absence of the applicant and his representatives, the Regional Court fixed the time-limit for posting bail until 11 May 2010. On 29 April 2010 that decision was sent by fax to the remand prison where the applicant was held. He was however unable to post the bail because the District Court did not have a deposit account. The applicant remained in custody.
8.  On 12 May 2010 the District Court held that the applicant must be re-detained for his failure to comply with the bail conditions. It did not set any time-limit for the application of the custodial measure.
9.  On 2 June 2010 the Regional Court quashed the detention order, finding that the detention order had lacked a basis in fact. It annulled the custodial measure and ordered the applicant’s release.
10.  The applicant was released on 4 June 2010.
11.  The conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison IZ-66/1 can be summarised as follows:
(a)  Cell 622, from January to June 2009, measured 30 square metres and accommodated 20 to 25 persons who took turns to sleep; windows were not glazed; the toilet was not separated from the living area;
(b)  Cell 129, June and July 2009, 9 square metres and 6 inmates;
(c)  Cell 407, July 2009, 12 square metres and 12 to 14 inmates;
(d)  Cell 408, August 2009 to April 2010, same as above;
(e)  Cell 155, April 2010, 15 square metres;
(f)  Cell 134, May 2010, 14 square metres for 8 inmates.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Yekaterinburg.
5.  On 13 May 2009 he was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. On the following day the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court in Yekaterinburg remanded him in custody and set the time-limit until 12 July 2009.
6.  On 13 July 2009 the District Court granted a two-month extension of the detention period. However, on 31 July 2009 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the extension order as it had been issued outside the authorised detention period, and ordered the applicant’s release.
7.  The applicant was not released. He was not allowed to leave the police ward and was re-arrested on the charge of theft. The arrest record mentioned the charge, without specifying when or where the theft had been committed or why the applicant was suspected of it.
8.  On 2 August 2009 the District Court adjourned the detention hearing for seventy-two hours, at the request from the applicant’s counsel. On 4 August 2009 the District Court issued a detention order which did not set a time-limit for the applicant’s detention or give any assessment to the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” against the applicant.  On 2 September 2009 the Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal.
9.  Further extensions of the applicant’s detention were granted by the Leninskiy District Court on 29 September, 20 October and 2 November 2009. The last extension order was issued in the absence of the parties. On 25 November 2009 the Regional Court found that extension order unlawful and set it aside, but extended the applicant’s detention for a future period.
10.  On 23 December 2009 the Bogdanovichi Town Court in the Sverdlovsk Region opened the trial and extended the applicant’s detention. The applicant’s appeal against the extension order was rejected by the Regional Court on 11 June 2010.
11.  On 2 March and 22 April 2010 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention. Each time the court referred to the gravity of the charges and the applicant’s criminal record. The appeals against the orders were rejected on 30 June and 11 June, respectively.
12.  Throughout the trial the applicant was held in a metal cage.
13.  On 13 May 2010 the applicant was found guilty of theft and armed robbery and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On 18 August 2010 the Regional Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three years’ imprisonment.
14.  On 24 June 2010 the applicant’s mother died. His request to be allowed to attend the funeral was rejected by the governor of the IZ-66/1 remand prison and upheld by the courts on the ground that remand prisoners did not have the benefit of a leave of absence under Russian law. When his father died on 5 November 2010, the director of the correctional colony in Sosnovoborsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region also refused his request for a short-term absence, on account of the funeral being held outside of the region where the colony was located.
15.  The Sosnovoborsk colony was located some 2,400 kilometres away from Yekaterinburg where the applicant’s family lived.
5.  A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
6.  On 21 November 1994 the applicants were taken into police custody. Their statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. All the applicants confessed to having committed the crimes with which they had been charged. On 28 December 1994 they were remanded in custody.
7.  On 24 January 1995 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants (except for Eyyup Yaşar), charging them under Section 125 of the former Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.
8.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of the State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges.
9.  On 4 December 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged.
10.  On 20 November 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the convictions.
11.  State Security Courts were abolished on 16 June 2004 pursuant to Law no. 5190. The case was accordingly transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
12.  On 22 February 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court again convicted the applicants under Section 125 of the Criminal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
13.  On 6 February 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the convictions.
4.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1996 respectively and live in Muğla.
5. The first applicant was the husband and the second applicant was the son of Mrs Özlem Gürakın, who died on 3 September 2001.
6.  On an unspecified date, the applicants brought compensation proceedings against the Dokuz Eylül University Hospital, alleging that Mrs Özlem Gürakın had been a victim of medical negligence. The applicants further requested legal aid for the court fees. In respect of their legal aid claim, they submitted documents attesting to their poor financial situation.
7.  On 13 December 2006 the Izmir Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ legal aid claim, without indicating any specific reasons. They were notified that they had to pay 1,683 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 870 Euros (EUR)) in court fees within one month to continue the proceedings and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings.
8.  As the applicants failed to pay the court fees within the time-limit, the İzmir Administrative Court sent a further warning letter to the applicants and ordered them to pay the court fees.
9.  On 6 April 2007 the applicants made a second request for legal aid and asked the court to reconsider its former decision.
10.  On 20 April 2007 the Izmir Administrative Court once again rejected the applicants’ request and granted them one month to pay the court fees.
11.  On 12 July 2007 the court decided to discontinue the proceedings, because the applicants had not paid the necessary court fees.
4.  The first applicant lives in Sarajevo. He is the grandfather of the second applicant. The second applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Sarajevo.
5.  On 10 November 2005 the second applicant initiated administrative proceedings in order to obtain recognition of the veteran status of his late father. His request was rejected on 12 December 2005. The second applicant appealed on an unknown date in December 2005 or January 2006.
6.  On 26 January 2006 the competent Ministry upheld the first-instance decision.
7.  On 21 January 2008 the Sarajevo Cantonal Court quashed the decisions of 12 December 2005 and 26 January 2006, and remitted the case to the first-instance body. In the new proceedings, the second applicant’s request was again rejected. The last decision was given by the Sarajevo Cantonal Court on 25 September 2012. It was served on the second applicant on 23 October 2012.
8.  In the meantime, on 10 October 2012, the Constitutional Court found a breach of the second applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time. It did not award any damages.
6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Adana.
7.  On 11 July 2000 the Adana Magistrate’s Court ordered the detention of the applicant in absentia.
8.  On 20 July 2000 the applicant was questioned by the gendarmerie in the absence of his lawyer. In his statement, the applicant gave a detailed description about his involvement in an illegal organisation and the activities in which he had taken part. Subsequently, he was brought before the public prosecutor at the Adana State Security Court. During the interview, the applicant stated, again in the absence of a lawyer, that his statements made to the gendarmerie had been correct.
9.  On 15 September 2000 the investigating judge at the Mardin Magistrate’s Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, again in the absence of a lawyer.
10.  On 24 October 2000 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment before the Adana State Security Court, charging the applicant under Section 125 of the former Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.
11.  On 25 October 2005 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged.
12.  On 26 April 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the conviction.
13.  On 6 November 2007 the Adana Assize Court found that, inter alia, on the basis of the applicant’s statements to the gendarmerie and the public prosecutor, the applicant had committed the offence under Section 125 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
14.  On 12 November 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.
4.  The applicants were born in 1982 and 1981 respectively.
5.  On 22 April 2006 upon receipt of intelligence reports that the youth branch of the PKK would be holding a meeting in the premises of a cooperative, the police officers, under the orders of the magistrates’ court, conducted a search in the premises of the co-operative of which the applicants were members. The police seized several documents and CDs that contained propaganda materials related to the youth branch of the PKK.
6.  On the same day the applicants were taken into custody on suspicion of being members of a terrorist organisation.
7.  On 24 April 2006 the Urfa Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicants’ detention on remand.
8.  On 27 April 2006 and 28 April 2006, respectively, the applicants filed objections against their pre-trial detention. The courts rejected their request on the basis of the case-file, without holding a hearing.
9.  During the pre-trial stage, the magistrates’ court continued to examine, by virtue of Article 108 of Law no. 5271, the necessity of applicants’ continued detention every thirty days on the basis of the case file, without holding an oral hearing. The applicants also filed objections against their continued pre-trial detention, namely on 15 June, 12 July, 17 July, 1 August and 17 October 2006. All these objections were examined on the basis of the case file and were rejected by the domestic courts.
10.  On 10 October 2006 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır Assize Court charging the applicants, along with twenty three other persons, with aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237).
11.  On 30 November 2006 the Diyarbakır Assize Court held its first hearing and the applicants appeared before the court. On the same day, the applicants were released pending trial.
12.  On 4 November 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquitted the applicants of the charges against them. In the absence of an appeal, this judgment became final on 12 November 2008.