coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant company is a privately owned company registered in Danilovgrad, Montenegro.
5.  In July 2004 a call for tender for hotel “Otrant” in Montenegro was issued. The deadline for submitting bids was October 2004. Together with three other companies, the applicant company took part in the tendering process. On 30 November 2004, however, it was informed that the tender was awarded to another bidder.
6.  On an unspecified date in December 2004, the applicant company objected to this decision. On 29 December 2004 the Commercial Court in Podgorica (Privredni sud u Podgorici) rejected the applicant company’s objection.
7.  On 28 January 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance.
8.  On 15 June 2006 the Commercial Court ruled against the applicant company. This decision was served on the applicant company on 8 September 2009.
9.  On 26 March 2010 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Commercial Court. The decision of the Court of Appeal was served on the applicant company’s lawyer on 27 April 2010.
10.  On 15 July 2010 the applicant company lodged an initiative urging the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office (Vrhovno državno tužilaštvo) to file a request for the protection of legality (zahtjev za zaštitu zakonitosti), but this motion was rejected on 21 July 2010.
11.  On 30 July 2010 the applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal. On 14 October 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected this appeal as having been lodged out of time.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine.
5.  In 1999 he obtained a Russian passport.
6.  On 29 December 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, ordered to arrest and bring the applicant to the court in order to determine the preventive measure during the investigation of his alleged robbery. The applicant’s name was put on the international list of wanted persons.
7.  On 26 September 2007 the applicant was arrested in Moscow. As the applicant was a Russian national, he was released.
8.  On 14 October 2007 the Ukrainian authorities sought the applicant’s extradition from Russia in relation to the criminal proceedings against him.
9.  On 21 December 2007 the Russian Federal Migration Authority concluded that the applicant had fraudulently obtained his Russian passport by falsifying a number of documents. They ordered to seize his passport and put his name on the federal wanted list. The applicant’s subsequent attempts to challenge the Federal Migration Authority’s decision on his Russian passport were unsuccessful.
10.  On 13 May 2008 the applicant was arrested. On 15 May 2008 a prosecutor authorised his detention considering that the decision of 29 December 2006 of the Leninskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk had authorised the applicant’s “placement into custody”, as mentioned in Article 61 § 1 of the Minsk Convention.
11.  On 24 June 2008 a district prosecutor decided that the applicant should be “placed in custody” considering that the decision of the Leninskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk of 29 December 2006 authorised “placement into custody”, as required under Article 466 § 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”).
12.  On several occasions the applicant unsuccessfully complained about his detention to the prosecuting authorities. On 4 September 2008 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint considering that his arrest and detention in relation to the Ukrainian extradition request had been and remained lawful. On 24 November 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld this decision of 4 September 2008 concluding that “matters relating to lawfulness and reasons for detention should be raised under another procedure prescribed by law”.
13.  On 3 October 2008 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office granted the extradition request. On 18 November 2008 the Moscow City Court confirmed the decision of 3 October 2008. On 29 January 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment of 18 November 2008 on appeal.
14.  On 20 May 2009 the applicant was transferred to the Ukrainian authorities in the town of Kharkov. On 26 May 2009 he was transferred to the town of Dnepropetrovsk. On 6 June 2009 a Ukrainian court refused to order the applicant’s detention pending the investigation. The applicant was released.
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Varna.
6.  The applicant and his wife divorced on 21 August 2006 pursuant to a court-approved agreement between the two of them. Under the terms of this agreement, the applicant undertook to pay child support to the two children born during the marriage and agreed to his wife’s keeping his family name after the divorce.
7.  Subsequently, the applicant learned that his former wife had conceived their second child, born in 2003, as a result of a relationship with another man during her marriage to the applicant. The applicant underwent a DNA test to determine whether he was the father of the younger child. The DNA test ‒ the result of which the applicant received on 15 January 2007 ‒ established that he was not the biological father of the second child. The results of this DNA test were never considered by a court.
8.  Shortly thereafter, in February 2007, the applicant brought a civil claim in court, seeking to contest his paternity of the child in question. On 1 March 2007 the Varna Regional Court dismissed his request, finding that it was time-barred due to the expiry – in 2004 – of the year-long limitation period counting from the child’s birth or from learning thereof (see the section “Relevant domestic law and practice” below”). This finding was confirmed by two higher judicial instances, the final decision being pronounced by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 19 September 2007.
9.  The applicant brought subsequent proceedings in which he sought to stop paying child support to the second child. On 20 May 2008 his claim was rejected by the Varna District Court, which found that it had not been proven that the applicant was not the child’s father, given that he had not rebutted the legal presumption under Article 32 (1) of the Family Code 1985 (“the 1985 Code”).
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Sovetskaya Gavan, Khabarovsk Region.
5.  On 22 October 2009 the applicant was arrested and brought to the Khabarovsk Administrative Detention Centre where he stayed until 27 November 2009.
6.  Since 22 October 2009 he had been detained with more than 12 inmates in the cell no. 9 designed for 12 persons and had to take turns to sleep. A month after he had been transferred to another cell with the area of 6 square meters which he had shared with another inmate.
7.  The detention centre had no shower facilities or a place for outdoor walks. The applicant’s cell was cold and damp, iron banks were not covered by mattresses. Toilets were not separated from the living area, and the persons using them were in full view of others. Food supply was inadequate, the applicant was served meals only once a day and had no drinking water from within the cell.
8.  The Government submitted that the Khabarovsk Administrative Detention Centre comprised two cells: no. 5 with the area of 14.6 square meters for 3 inmates and no. 6 with the area of 18 square meters for 4 inmates. There was no overcrowding; the toilet had been separate by a shoulder length fence. The detainees may take a shower once a week. The temperature was 23oC, there were kettles with boiled water in the cells.
9.  On 26 October 2009 the applicant’s wife, Mrs Liu, sought to visit the applicant but was refused.
10.  On 6 and 10 November 2009 the applicant’s wife filed complaints with the Khabarovsk Prosecutor’s Office stating that she had not been allowed to see the applicant.
11.  In August 2010 the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, stating that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading, and that the prohibition on family visits was unlawful.
12.  On 9 February 2011 the Industrialnyy District Court of Khabarovsk dismissed his claim. Relying on the statements of a representative of the detention centre, the court held that the Internal Rules of the Administrative Detention Centres approved by the Decree of the Ministry of Defence of Russia of 6 June 2000 no. 605 dsp (“the Rules”) did not make provision for family visits, and that the applicant’s right to family life had not been breached as he had met his wife during court hearings.
13.  On 18 May 2011 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  At the material time, the applicant was a civil servant in the Metropolitan Municipality of Istanbul and a member of the local branch of the Tümbel-Sen trade union, which is affiliated to the KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – the Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions).
7.  In April 2008 two of the largest trade unions, namely the DİSK (Devrimci İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Revolutionary Workers’ Trade Unions) and the KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions) announced that they were planning a large scale demonstration in Istanbul for 1 May 2008 and that their members would be gathering to celebrate the Labour Day and to commemorate their friends who had lost their lives during the demonstrations of 1 May 1977.
8.  In May 2008 the applicant was informed that a disciplinary investigation had been initiated against him for being absent without leave on 1 May 2008 and he was asked to submit his defence submissions. The applicant explained that he had participated in a demonstration organised by his trade union on that day to celebrate International Labour Day.
9.  Subsequently, the applicant was given a warning as a disciplinary sanction owing to his being absent without leave on 1 May 2008 pursuant to section 125 of the Civil Servants Act (Law no. 657).
10.  On 13 May 2008 the applicant objected to the decision and requested its annulment.
11.  On 16 May 2008 the Disciplinary Board of the Istanbul Municipality dismissed the applicant’s objection, finding that the contested decision was in accordance with the law and that there were no grounds to annul it.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Oslo, Norway.
5.  On 26 April 2000 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and one other person in connection with a traffic accident which had resulted in death of a child.
6.  On 25 February 2003 the Court of First Instance in Podgorica convicted the applicant for endangering public traffic and sentenced him and his co-accused to one year and six months’ imprisonment.
7.  On an unspecified date in 2006 the High Court in Podgorica quashed this judgment and remitted case back to the Court of First Instance.
8.  On 18 April 2007 the Court of First Instance adopted a new judgment and again convicted the applicant and his co-accused. But the court reduced the sentence to one year and four months’ imprisonment.
9.  On 13 November 2009 the High Court further reduced the sentence of the applicant’s co-accused, but upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance in respect of the applicant.
10.  The applicant’s subsequent appeal against the judgment of the High Court was rejected on 14 June 2010.
11.  Following that rejection, on an unspecified date in 2010, the applicant lodged a further appeal on points of law (zahtjev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude) with the Supreme Court.
12.  On 26 October 2010 the Supreme Court rejected this appeal.
13.  On 11 December 2010 the applicant lodged an action for fair redress (tužba za pravično zadovoljenje) with the Supreme Court, complaining about the overall length of criminal proceedings. It was rejected on 31 December 2010.
14.  On 19 April 2013 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s ultimate appeal.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  The applicant was born in 1967 in the Tajikistan Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union and came to Russia in 1993. He is an apatride.
7.  On 31 July 2014 the applicant was arrested for vagrancy. On 2 August 2014 the Kalininskiy District Court in St Petersburg sentenced him to a fine and administrative removal from Russia. The court also directed that he should be detained until expulsion in the special facility for the detention of aliens in the Leningrad Region (СУВСИГ по СПб и ЛО) in Krasnoye Selo. The decision described the applicant as being “a native (уроженец) of the Tajikistan Republic”.
8.  By letters dated 11 August and 18 November 2014, the Federal Migration Service asked the Embassy of Tajikistan in Moscow to issue a laissez-passer document enabling the applicant’s return to Tajikistan. No reply was received.
9.  On an unspecified date the applicant was fingerprinted. It was discovered that he had been registered in the police database under a different name. On 11 February 2015 the Federal Migration Service used that name to request a laissez-passer from the Embassy of Tajikistan. It did not receive a response.
10.  On 10 September 2015 the Federal Migration Service again attempted to obtain a travel document for the applicant using his original name. The Embassy did not reply.
11.  On 28 July 2016 the governor of the detention centre asked the Kalininskiy District Court to discontinue the enforcement of the judgment on the ground that the two-year limitation period in respect of the applicant’s offence had expired. On 29 July 2016 the District Court granted the application. The applicant was released on 13 August 2016.
12.  While in detention, the applicant was held in standard six-person cells (Cells 509, 402, 516 and 615) measuring 27.4 square metres which were furnished with three two-tier bunk beds, six bed stands, six chairs and a table. Between October 2014 and February 2015 he was also held in a smaller cell (Cell 514, 13 sq. m, two beds) and a larger cell (Cell 315, 40.2 sq. m, four two-tier bunk beds).
13.  Cell 402, in which he stayed from February to September 2015, was a so-called “closed cell”. The steel door with a peephole and a hatch for serving food remained under lock at all times and he was not allowed to leave the cell, except for short and infrequent outdoor exercise. For the first two months, he had been alone in that cell.
14.  The applicant complained about dim lighting, poor quality of food, insufficient outdoor exercise in cramped conditions, a lack of medical assistance and a shortage of meaningful activities. The Government disputed the applicant’s allegations and submitted copies of contracts with the catering, cleaning and laundering companies and a copy of visitors’ register from the medical unit.
4.  The applicant was born in 1992 and lives in Bukhara, Uzbekistan.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  The applicant was born in Uzbekistan. In 2003 his father, mother, brother and sister moved to Vladivostok in Russia and subsequently acquired Russian nationality, while he continued to live with his grandfather in Bukhara, visiting them in the summer months. After his grandfather had died and the applicant had finished the secondary school, in June 2011 he joined his family in Russia.
7.  The applicant took a mandatory blood test with a view to obtaining a health certificate to support his application for a temporary residence permit. He was found to be HIV-positive.
8.  On 23 September 2011 the Consumer Protection Authority declared the applicant’s presence in Russian undesirable (the “exclusion order”) on the ground that he was HIV-positive.
9.  By judgment of 19 December 2011, the Sovetskiy District Court in Vladivostok rejected the applicant’s challenge to the exclusion order, finding that it was issued in full compliance with Russian law.
10.  On 13 February 2012 the Primorskiy Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
11.  On 22 February 2012 the applicant left Russia to comply with the exclusion order.
5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Opaci.
6.  On 29 July 2009, the applicant was celebrating his birthday with a group of friends by a lake when they were attacked by S. who was intoxicated and carrying a hunting rifle. S. was angry because the applicant and his friends had allegedly ill-treated his uncle earlier. During the conflict, S. hit one of the applicant’s friends with the barrel of his gun and fired four gunshots at the group’s cars parked nearby. The applicant attempted to prevent S. from continuing shooting but was shot from a distance of some five metres into his right calf. The applicant’s repeated attempts to disarm S. resulted in his receiving two more gunshots from a very short distance into his already wounded leg.
7.  As a result of the attack the applicant sustained serious injuries to his right leg which led to amputation of his leg above the knee.
8.  On 31 July 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted against S. on charges of hooliganism with the use of a firearm resulting in the causing of severe harm to the applicant’s health.
9.  Between 1 and 10 August 2009 twenty-five witnesses were questioned and by 12 September 2009 most of the investigative measures were completed.
10.  On 12 August 2009 S. was declared a suspect in the criminal proceedings and on 29 December 2009 he was indicted.
11.  On 12 January 2010 S. was heard as an accused. He acknowledged his guilt, but refused to make any declarations.
12.  On 23 February 2010 the criminal case-file was remitted for examination from the Căușeni Police Station to the Anenii Noi Police Station.
13.  Between March and December 2010 the Anenii Noi police conducted a new investigation into the circumstances of the case and carried out again all the investigative measures.
14.  On 14 December 2010 the case-file was transmitted to the Anenii Noi prosecutor’s office with the proposal to be remitted to a court for consideration.
15.  On 20 December 2010 both the applicant and his representative were notified of the completion of the criminal investigation.
16.  On 30 December 2010 the prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against S. The prosecutor’s office found that according to Article 63(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person’s status as suspect cannot be maintained longer than three months. Since S. was indicted on 29 December 2009, that is four months and seventeen days later, the indictment was unlawful. Therefore, all charges against S. were dropped and the proceedings discontinued.
17.  On 18 February 2011 at the request of the applicant’s representative, the prosecutor general’s office decided to annul its previous decision of 30 December 2010, and to resume the criminal investigation on the ground that new facts had been discovered.
18.  On 31 March 2011 the Rascani District Court upheld S.’s objection against the prosecutor’s decision of 18 February 2011, ordering its annulment. The applicant and his representative were not summoned or informed about the proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Adana.
6.  On 8 March 2002 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
7.  On 9 March 2002 the applicant’s statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. During the interrogation, the applicant gave a detailed account of her acts within the illegal organisation PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party).
8.  On 11 March 2002 the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, again in the absence of a lawyer. Before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant partially retracted her previous statements maintaining that she had given statements to the police under duress. On the same day, upon the order of the investigating judge, the applicant was placed in pre‑trial detention.
9.  On 18 March 2002 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code.
10.  At a hearing held on 31 May 2002, the applicant gave evidence in person in the presence of her lawyer. She stated that she had left Turkey through her own means and that she went to Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Iran with the help of the people whose names she could not remember anymore. She further stated that she had stayed in camps in Greece and Iran. While she was at the camp in Iran she was not involved in many activities owing to her young age. She further maintained that she had wanted to return to Turkey due to her health condition and for family reasons. She further stated that she had turned back to Turkey through the mountains with the help of people who knew the area well. While the applicant was staying at her elder sister’s house, she was arrested by the police. The applicant also claimed that she did not know any of the other accused in the case and that she had not received any training in the camps. Lastly, she stated that she had been called the code name “Ariel” at the camp in Iran.
When asked about her statements to the police, the applicant denied them, claiming that they had been taken under duress. When asked about her statements to the public prosecutor, she denied them except for the parts concerning her travel. When asked about her statements to the investigating judge, she denied them claiming once again that the police had put pressure on her.
11.  On 16 April 2008, relying on, inter alia, the applicant’s statements to the police, the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 314 § 2 of the new Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced her to six years and three months’ imprisonment.
12.  On 23 December 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1980 in Abakan, the Khakassiya Republic.
5.  The applicant stood accused of theft and murder. On 22 November 2004 the Sayanogorsk Town Court in Khakassiya fixed, in the hearing held without the applicant’s attendance, the opening date for the trial and ordered an extension of his pre-trial detention. On 2 December 2004 the applicant was convicted and given a custodial sentence.
6.  On 22 March 2005 the Constitutional Court held, in unrelated proceedings, that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to be interpreted as guaranteeing the right of the defendant to take part in the hearing where the matter of detention was decided, to make submissions to the court and to produce evidence (Judgment no. 4-P, point 4 of the operative part).
7.  On 8 August 2013 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Khakassiya Republic quashed the Town Court’s decision of 22 November 2004 in the part relating to the detention matter. Referring to the case-law of the Constitutional Court, it found that the District Court had unlawfully extended the applicant’s detention without giving him an opportunity to take part in the hearing or to make submissions to the court.
8.  The applicant sued the Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation for the unlawful detention from 22 November to 2 December 2004. By judgment of 16 September 2013, as upheld on appeal on 27 November 2013, the Abakan Town Court rejected his claim, holding that he was not eligible for compensation in respect of pre-trial detention because he had been found guilty and given a custodial sentence.