coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicants, who are husband and wife, were born in 1970 and live in Chișinău.
6.  On 29 January 2008 the applicants were involved in a street protest as a result of which they were arrested and detained for six hours and forty‑five minutes. On 18 December 2008 the first applicant was again involved in a street protest, as a result of which he was arrested and detained for approximately four hours and a half. Later both applicants were acquitted and the actions of the police were found to be unlawful. The facts concerning those protests were described in detail in Mătăsaru and Saviţchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, §§ 6-58, 2 November 2010.
7.  On 29 January 2009 the first applicant organised again a street protest and was arrested again and detained for some six hours. Later the applicant was acquitted and the actions of the police were found to be unlawful.
8.  On 2 November 2010 the Court adopted a judgment in the case of Mătăsaru and Saviţchi (cited above), in which it declared inadmissible the applicants’ complaints concerning the alleged breaches of their rights guaranteed by Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention on the ground of their failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see Mătăsaru and Saviţchi (cited above, § 75).
9.  After that, the applicants brought a civil action under Law 1545 (on compensation for damage caused by illegal acts of the criminal investigation bodies, the prosecution authorities or the courts) seeking compensation in respect of the breach of their rights guaranteed by Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention in regard to all three street protests of 2008 and 2009.
10.  By a final judgment of 6 February 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice acknowledged the breach of the applicnts’ rights guaranteed by Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention and awarded them the equivalent of 900 and 270 euros (EUR), respectively.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and was detained at the Kırıkkale F‑type prison when the application was lodged.
5.  On 1 October 2004 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being member of a terrorist organisation.
6.  On 5 October 2004 the applicant was brought before the judge at the Ankara Assize Court who placed him in detention on remand taking into consideration the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the severity of the envisaged penalty.
7.  On 15 March 2005 the Ankara public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Ankara Assize Court, charging the applicant with membership of a terrorist organisation.
8.  On 31 January 2008 the Ankara Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. The court ordered the continuation of his detention.
9.  On 6 May 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. The case was accordingly remitted to the Ankara Assize Court for further examination.
10.  On 10 November 2009 the 11th Chamber of the Ankara Assize Court held a further hearing, in which both the applicant and his lawyer were present. At the end of that hearing, the court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention.
11.  On 10 December 2009 the applicant’s lawyer filed an objection against the decision of 10 November 2009. On 21 December 2009 the 12th Chamber of the Ankara Assize Court dismissed this objection without holding a hearing. In delivering its decision, the court took into consideration the written opinion of the public prosecutor, which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative.
12. On 28 August 2012 the Ankara Assize Court once more convicted the applicant and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment.
13. On 8 July 2013 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court.
5.  The applicants were born in 1964, 1957 and 1947 respectively. The first and third applicants live in Ankara. The second applicant left Turkey subsequent to his criminal conviction giving rise to the present application.
6.  On 21 August 2006 the applicants took part in a religious ceremony (mevlüt)[1] on the premises of the Altındağ district branch of the Party for a Democratic Society (Demokratik Toplum Partisi – “the DTP”) in Ankara, at which they paid tribute to three members of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, who had been killed by the security forces. One of the deceased was the first applicant’s nephew. The second applicant was the head of the Ankara branch of the DTP at the relevant time. The third applicant was a member of the DTP and a friend of the first applicant.
7.  On 23 November 2007 the Ankara public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara Assize Court, charging the applicants and a number of other persons with dissemination of propaganda in favour of the PKK, under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), on account of their participation in the ceremony of 21 August 2006. According to the indictment, during the ceremony photographs of the deceased and the PKK’s flag were displayed at the venue and a film about the lives of the deceased was shown. In addition, the second applicant, the head of the Ankara branch of the DTP, made the following statement:
“Our fears and worries continue. People are still being killed. In such a context, we would like this mevlüt to be a moment of peace and fraternity.”
8.  On 24 September 2008 the Ankara Assize Court convicted the applicants of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK and sentenced them to ten months’ imprisonment each. In its judgment, the Assize Court observed, firstly, that the persons in whose memory the ceremony had been held were members of a terrorist organisation and that they had been killed by the security forces during an operation against that organisation. It also took the view that the choice of venue for the ceremony – the premises of a political party – and the fact that the PKK flag had been spread over the tables and photographs of members of the organisation had been displayed, contributed to raising serious doubts as to the applicants’ submissions that they had taken part in the ceremony in observance of their religious duties. The court considered that the applicants had committed the offence of dissemination of propaganda given that they had shared the feelings of mourning and sorrow for the deceased who had been involved in terrorism. It further considered that the venue where the ceremony had been held had turned into a propaganda venue in favour of the PKK.
9.  Following an appeal lodged by the applicants, their conviction was upheld by a final decision of the Court of Cassation on 8 March 2010.
10.  The first and third applicants served their prison sentences.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in İzmir.
5.  In March 2002, the applicant, who was a working as a civil servant, was dismissed due gross misconduct. He applied to the administrative courts to have the annulment of that decision. In the course of the proceedings, on 4 July 2006 Law no. 5525, granting amnesty to civil servants who had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings, entered into force. Accordingly, in the light of this new amnesty law, on 10 April 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court decided that there was no need to examine the merits of the case.
6.  In the meantime, on 30 September 2005 the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant had ended with the decision of the criminal court, convicting him of abuse of office.
7.  Following the entry into force of the amnesty law, the applicant applied to the administration and asked to be reinstated. His request was refused on 19 December 2006. The applicant initiated proceedings to have the annulment of that decision.
8.  By a decision dated 8 January 2008, the Ankara Administrative Court found in line with the applicant’s claims and decided to annul the decision of the authorities by which they had refused to reinstate the applicant.
9.  Following appeal, the case was transferred before the Supreme Administrative Court. In the course of the proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court filed his written opinion. This opinion included substantial grounds on the merits of the case with a proposal to quash the decision of the first instance court. On 25 May 2009, relying also on the opinion of the Chief Public Prosecutor, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of 8 January 2008. In particular, the appeal court referred to its previous leading case which had been delivered on 17 October 2008 on a similar case and held that the amnesty law did not put an obligation on the administration to reinstate the applicant.
10.  The case was accordingly remitted before the Ankara Administrative Court. On 9 October 2009 the first instance court adhered to the judgment of the appeal court and dismissed the applicant’s case. This decision was served on the applicant on 13 November 2009.
4.  The applicants were born in 1990, 1988 and 1957, respectively and live in Chișinău.
5.  The first and the second applicants were arrested on 8 and 9 April 2009, as a result of the mass protest which took place in Chișinău after the elections of 5 April 2009. They were placed in detention for ten and seven days respectively. Later the charges against them were dropped.
6.  The third applicant was accused of fraud and placed in detention pending trial between 15 and 18 April 2004 and between 28 July and 3 August 2005, i.e. for nine days. Later the charges against him were dropped. The Government disputed the fact that the third applicant was detained between 28 July and 3 August 2005.
7.  On different dates the applicants brought civil actions under Law No. 1545 (on compensation for damage caused by illegal acts of the criminal investigation bodies, the prosecution authorities or the courts) seeking 115,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 6,765 euros (EUR)), MDL 600,000 (the equivalent of EUR 36,700) and MDL 80,000 (the equivalent of EUR 4800), respectively, in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. On 11 December 2013, 3 July 2013 and 28 May 2014 respectively, the Supreme Court of Justice concluded that the applicants’ detentions had been unlawful and in breach of Article 5 of the Convention and awarded them MDL 15,000 (the equivalent of EUR 835), MDL 7,000 (the equivalent to EUR 428) and MDL 6,000 (the equivalent of EUR 317) respectively as compensation for the damage caused. The domestic courts found inter alia that the third applicant had been detained between 15 and 18 April 2004 and between 28 July and 3 August 2005.
8.  In addition, the first and the second applicants were part of a group of persons considered to be victims of the events of April 2009 and were awarded by two Government decisions MDL 10,000 (the equivalent of EUR 625) and MDL 7000 (the equivalent of EUR 444), respectively.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kayseri.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  The applicant, who was a sergeant in the Army had a traffic accident in 2007 and was declared “disabled” (Adi malül”).
7.  On unspecified date, the applicant requested the General Directorate of Pension Fund (the Fund) (“Emekli-Sandığı”) to modify his retirement statute as service-disabled (“vazife malülü”), but the fund rejected that request.
8.  On 9 August 2007 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the Fund’s decision.
9.  On 22 May 2008 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request.
10.  On 11 September 2008 the applicant’s rectification request was rejected.
11.  During the proceedings, namely on 12 May 2008 and 29 July 2008 the Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Military Administrative Court filed lengthy written opinions on the case. However these opinions were not communicated to the applicant.
5.  Mr Vasilevskiy was born in 1973 and lives in Blagoveshchensk.
6.  Mr Vasilevskiy stayed in detention for longer that he should have because the sentencing courts did not count the time he had spent in pre-trial detention towards the overall duration of his sentence, in breach of the applicable domestic provisions. In response to Mr Vasilevskiy’s repeated complaints, on 7 May 2007 the Belogorskiy District Court in the Amur Region corrected the error and acknowledged that his sentence had expired on 26 February 2006. Mr Vasilevskiy was released on 13 June 2007. He sought compensation for 472 days during which he had been wrongfully detained.
7.  On 13 December 2013 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court in the Amur Region awarded him 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB – 3,320 euros (EUR) at the then-applicable exchange rate) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Mr Vasilevskiy lodged an appeal, submitting in particular that that sum was substantially lower than that which the Court would have awarded in a similar case.
8.  On 28 February 2014 the Amur Regional Court dismissed his appeal. As regards the level of compensation, it held that the Town Court had “had regard to the case-law of the European Court but had correctly determined the amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the light of the requirements of Russian law”.
9.  Mr Bogdanov was born in 1981 and lives in the Novgorod Region.
10.  On 30 March 2007 Mr Bogdanov was convicted of supplying drugs on four separate occasions in 2006 and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. On 20 March 2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation acknowledged, referring to the Court’s case-law under Article 6 of the Convention, that the police had incited Mr Bogdanov to commit the last three of the four offences. It declared that part of evidence inadmissible, voided his conviction in that part, reduced his sentence to six years’ imprisonment and ordered his immediate release.
11.  By that time, Mr Bogdanov had spent 119 days in custody over and above the adjusted six-year sentence. He sought to recover damages in respect of his wrongful imprisonment.
12.  On 13 March 2014 the Valdayskiy District Court in the Novgorod Region awarded him RUB 80,000 (EUR 1,576). However, on 9 July 2014 the Novgorod Regional Court reduced the award to RUB 15,000 (EUR 324), referring to the “circumstances in which the criminal proceedings had been instituted” and the “category of offence that Mr Bogdanov had been charged with”. On 30 September 2014 the Regional Court rejected a cassation appeal lodged by Mr Bogdanov.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Bielsk Podlaski.
5.  The facts of the case were not in dispute and may be summarised as follows.
6.  The applicant was detained in Siedlce Prison from 26 January to 19 April 2007 and from 15 July to 15 October 2009.
7.  The applicant submitted that, during his detention in Siedlce Prison, he had been held in cells where the amount of space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 m². He also submitted that he had been held in cells with smokers. Moreover, he raised the problems of humidity, lack of hygiene and warm water and limited access to make telephone calls.
8.  The domestic courts found that the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell during his detention in Siedlce Prison from 15 July to 15 October 2009 (91 days), when he had been assigned to cell no. 616 (15.94 m²) with 5 other prisoners (2.65 m² per person).
9.  The courts further found that the toilet areas had been separated from the rest of the living space in the cells in compliance with the relevant law. The toilet annex had only cold running water. It was further noted that the cells were adequately equipped. The applicant was held in cells in accordance with his declaration about his tobacco habits.
10.  On 13 July 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 an overcrowded cell in Siedlce Prison. He claimed 43,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (10,750 euros (EUR)) in compensation.
11.  On 30 May 2014 the Siedlce District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) dismissed the applicant’s action. It confirmed, however, that the applicant had been detained temporarily in an overcrowded cell, from 15 July to 15 October 2009.
12.  On 17 February 2015 the Siedlce Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Riga.
6.  On 17 October 2000 the Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health and Fitness for Work (Veselības un darbspēju ekspertīzes ārstu komisija) granted the applicant a disability status of category 3 (the least severe level of disability) on the grounds of a visual impairment.
7.  On 16 October 2001 following an examination the Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health and Fitness for Work declined the applicant’s request to prolong her disability status.
8.  On 9 November 2001 this decision was upheld by the State Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health and Fitness for Work (Veselības un darbspēju ekspertīzes ārstu valsts komisija, hereinafter ‑ the Commission) and on 5 December 2001 by an extended composition of that Commission.
9.  The applicant challenged the decision of the Commission before a court. On 22 April 2002 the Riga City Zemgale District Court declined the claim. The applicant appealed.
10.  On 30 July 2004 the Regional Administrative Court annulled the decision of 5 December 2001 due to lack of reasoning and ordered the Commission to carry out a new examination. On 30 November 2004 this judgment was upheld by the Administrative Cases Division of the Supreme Court.
11.  On 11 January 2005, following a new examination by an extended composition, the Commission again refused to grant the applicant the status of a disabled person.
12.  On 9 January 2006 the applicant brought a claim to the Administrative District Court challenging the Commission’s decision and requesting to be granted the status of a disabled person from 16 October 2001.
13.  On 29 September 2006 the Administrative District Court declined the applicant’s claim. This judgment was upheld by the Regional Administrative Court.
14.  The Administrative Cases Division of the Supreme Court two times quashed the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court for its failure to follow the interpretation of the domestic law given by the Supreme Court.
15.  On 24 November 2010 the Regional Administrative Court declined the applicant’s claim, and on 14 March 2011 the Administrative Cases Division of the Supreme Court refused to institute cassation proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Naberezhnyye Chelny.
5.  The applicant was a police officer. On 1 November 2004 he was arrested on suspicion of having extracted a bribe.
6.  On 10 November 2005 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic convicted the applicant and sentenced him to imprisonment. He stayed under the obligation not to leave his place of residence in Naberezhnyye Chelny until the conviction became final. He could leave his place of residence only upon the summons from the investigator or the court.
7.  Several parties to the criminal proceedings, including the applicant, appealed against the conviction. The case was forwarded to the Russian Supreme Court in Moscow, 1,000 km away from Naberezhnyye Chelny. The applicant never received any summons to the appeal hearing due to the Supreme Court’s mistake in the postal code. Neither did he receive copies of the statements of appeal filed by the prosecutor, by the co-accused, G., and the latter’s lawyer.
8.  On 28 February 2006 the conviction was upheld by the Russian Supreme Court. The prosecutor and G.’s lawyer attended the appeal hearing. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present.
9.  In 2011 the applicant lodged a compensation claim for non-pecuniary damages caused by poor conditions of detention. In the text of his claim the applicant explicitly asked the court to consider the claim in his absence. On 14 April 2011 the Bugulminskiy Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic dismissed his claim. The applicant received the notification of the time and date of the hearing after the hearing had actually taken place.
10.  The first-instance judgment was upheld on 4 July 2011 by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic. The applicant had been notified of that hearing on 29 June 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and was detained at the Tekirdağ F‑type prison when the application was lodged.
5.  On 9 April 2003 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organisation.
6.  On 13 April 2003 the applicant was brought before the judge at the Istanbul State Security Court who placed him in detention on remand taking into consideration the nature of the offence, and the state of evidence.
7.  On 23 July 2003 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, charging the applicant with membership of a terrorist organisation, and attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the Republic of Turkey by force. The criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced.
8.  On 10 November 2008 the court held a further hearing, in which both the applicant and his lawyer were present. At the end of that hearing, the court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention.
9.  On 10 November 2008 the applicant’s lawyer filed an objection against this decision. On 27 November 2008 the 13th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court dismissed the objection without holding a hearing. In delivering its decision, the court took into consideration the written opinion of the public prosecutor, which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative.
10.  On 4 May 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
11.  On 25 September 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.