coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Smědčice.
6.  On 9 November 2006 the applicant requested a building permit for temporary stables for horses. On 6 January 2011 the Rokycany Planning Office (stavební úřad) dismissed his request and on 26 May 2011 the Plzeň Regional Office (krajský úřad) upheld that decision.
7.  On 29 March 2013 the Plzeň Regional Court (krajský soud) dismissed a complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Plzeň Regional Office.
8.  On 31 July 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. The decision was served on the applicant on 28 August 2013.
9.  On 29 October 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint (ústavní stížnost).
10.  On 31 March 2014 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) rejected the applicant’s appeal as being lodged out of time. It held that as the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision had been served on him on 28 August 2013, the last day of the two-month time-limit for lodging a constitutional appeal was 28 October 2013.
11.  On 8 April 2014 the applicant wrote to the Constitutional Court urging it to set aside its decision. He argued that as 28 October 2013 had been a national holiday, domestic procedural rules provided that the last day for lodging his appeal had been the following day, namely 29 October 2013.
12.  By a letter of 11 April 2014 the Registrar (generální sekretář) of the Constitutional Court acknowledged that the judge-rapporteur had undoubtedly overlooked the fact that the time-limit had been complied with. However, as the Constitutional Court did not have the power to set aside its own decision, he advised the applicant to lodge an application with the European Court of Human Rights.
4.  The applicant, S.S. Yeniköy Konut Yapı Kooperatifi, is a housing construction cooperative under Turkish law operating in İzmir.
5.  In 1993, a third party cooperative bought a plot of land measuring 12,000 square metres and the title deed of the land was registered in its name. In 1995, construction works started on the land in question.
6.  In 2000, the forest administration initiated proceedings before the Menderes Civil Court of First Instance for the annulment of the title deed to the land, alleging that it was part of the public forest area. In the meantime, the third party cooperative had merged with the applicant cooperative and the land had been registered in the Land Registry in the name of the latter.
7.  On 26 December 2002 the Menderes Civil Court of First Instance ordered that 9,322 square metres of the land be registered in the name of the Treasury as it was part of the public forest area. It also ordered that the buildings constructed on this part of the land be demolished.
8.  Subsequently, the applicant brought a case before the Menderes Civil Court of First Instance and sought pecuniary damages from the Treasury under Article 1007 of the Civil Code which provided for the State’s responsibility for any damage resulting from the keeping of the land registry records.
9.  On 4 February 2005 the Menderes Civil Court of First Instance awarded 138,917,600,000 Turkish Liras (TRL – approximately 81,716 euros (EUR) at the time) to the applicant.
10.  On 7 February 2006 the Fourth Civil Division of the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Menderes Civil Court of First Instance on the ground that there was no illegal act or action on the part of the land registry officials that might have had a causal link with the applicant’s loss.
11.  On 6 July 2006 the applicant submitted a further petition to the Menderes Civil Court of First Instance and indicated that there was a decision of the First Civil Division of the Court of Cassation which was in contradiction with the decision of the Fourth Civil Division. In this context, the applicant alleged that its case should be accepted according to that decision of the First Civil Division issued on 7 May 2002 and numbered E.2002/3549 K.2002/5807.
12.  On 20 October 2006 the Menderes Civil Court of First Instance followed the decision of the Fourth Civil Division of the Court of Cassation and dismissed the applicant’s claim.
13.  The applicant appealed. Reiterating its allegations and referring to the decision of the First Civil Division of the Court of Cassation of 7 May 2002, it repeated its compensation request.
14.  On 1 May 2007 the applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Fourth Civil Division of the Court of Cassation. This decision became final.
15.  In their decisions, neither the Menderes Civil Court of First Instance nor the Fourth Civil Division of the Court of Cassation expressed any reason about why they had reached a different conclusion from the First Civil Division of the Court of Cassation.
4.  The applicant, who was born in 1989, lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 14 January 2009 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
6.  On 17 January 2009 the investigating judge at the Istanbul Assize Court, after questioning the applicant, ordered his pre-trial detention.
7.  On 24 June 2009 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court.
8.  The trial commenced before the Istanbul Assize Court and the first preparatory hearing was held on 4 November 2009.
9.  In the subsequent hearings held between 17 February 2010 and 3 November 2010, the applicant appeared before the court and the judges ordered his continued detention.
10.  The applicant filed an objection against the decision of 3 November 2010. On 29 November 2010 the 12th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court dismissed this objection without holding an oral hearing, and based on the public prosecutor’s written opinion, which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative.
11.  On 13 February 2013 the applicant was released from detention on remand.
12.  According to the latest information in the case-file, the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first-instance court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Manisa.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 7 July 2009 the applicant was dismissed from the Expert Gendarmerie School due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules.
8.  On 28 July 2009 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court and requested the annulment of the decision to dismiss him.
9.  On 6 January 2010 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s case, taking into account the “secret documents” submitted by the Ministry of Defence. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.
10.  On 5 May 2010 the applicant’s request for rectification was rejected by the same court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Podgorica.
6.  On 6 September 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the Commission for Restitution (Komisija za restituciju nepokretnosti) in Berane requesting restitution of the property expropriated from his father in 1969.
7.  Following the adoption of a new Restitution Act (Zakon o povraćaju oduzetih imovinskih prava i obeštećenju), on 28 December 2005, the applicant submitted another application to the newly established Commission for Restitution and Compensation in Berane (Komisija za povraćaj oduzetih imovinskih prava i obeštećenja) requesting compensation.
8.  In 2008 all the Commissions for Restitution and Compensation were consolidated into three regional Commissions in Bar, Bijelo Polje and Podgorica. Due to the location of the expropriated property, the applicant’s request was assigned to the Commission with its seat in Bijelo Polje (hereinafter “the Commission”).
9.  On 19 February 2009 the applicant sought opinion from an independent expert regarding the expropriated property.
10.  On 21 July 2009 the Commission also requested an assessment report on the expropriated property. The report was submitted to the Commission on 24 July 2009.
11.  Due to Commission’s inactivity, on 4 September 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal (žalba zbog ćutanja uprave) with the Appeals Commission (Komisija za žalbe u postupku za povraćaj imovinskog prava ili obeštećenja).
12.  On 23 October 2009 and 5 December 2013 the applicant filed complaints with the Ministry of Finance and the Administrative Court, respectively, about the Appeals Commission’s inactivity.
13.  On 24 December 2013 the Appeals Commission ordered the Commission to decide on the applicant’s request within a period of 30 days.
14.  On 13 October 2014 the Commission ruled against the applicant.
15.  On 23 December 2014 the Appeals Commission upheld that decision on appeal.
16.  The applicant filed and action with the Administrative Court seeking redress.
17.  On 17 April 2015 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unfounded. This decision was served on the applicant on 23 April 2015.
18.  On 23 June 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. On 24 July 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected his appeal for failure to make proper use of other available domestic remedies. According to the Constitutional Court, the applicant should first have made use of an additional request for the judicial review of his case (zahtjev za vanredno preispitivanje sudske odluke).
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kraljevo.
6.  Between June 2003 and December 2004 the applicant, as an entrepreneur, was providing heating installation services to AD Fabrika za proizvodnju konfekcije i trikotaže Raška, a socially-owned company based in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the debtor company”).
7.  On 2 December 2010 the Kraljevo Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company (St. 31/2010).
8.  The applicant duly submitted his claim.
9.  On 15 March 2011 the Commercial Court rejected his claim and instructed him to initiate a regular civil suit and request determination of his claim. The applicant lodged a separate civil claim.
10.  On 1 December 2011 the Commercial Court ruled in favour of the applicant by recognizing his claim and ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant the costs of the civil proceedings.
11.  On an unspecified date thereafter, the said judgment having become final, was acknowledged within the insolvency proceedings.
12.  On 22 July 2013 the Commercial Court issued a decision ordering payment of approximately 10 % of the total debt to the applicant. The applicant received this payment on an unspecified date.
13.  The debtor company was ultimately struck from the relevant public register on 9 July 2014.
14.  On 16 December 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining against the Commercial Court’s decision of 22 July 2013 and that his right to work and right to compensation for work and providing services were infringed, because he received only 10 % of the total debt. He asked further the Constitutional Court to order the payment of the rest of the debt.
15.  On 2 March 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal finding that it is not vested with the power to order such a payment. That decision was delivered to the applicant after 24 April 2015.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow.
6.  On 24 January 2011 a bomb attack at the Domodedovo airport killed 37 people and injured more than 160. It was later established that the explosion was caused by a suicide bomber and organised by a militant group operating in the North Caucasus. The applicant, who was present at the airport at the time of explosion, sustained multiple injuries to her body (wounds, contusions and fractures) which provoked further complications (cerebral oedema, coma, respiratory and cardiac insufficiency and a traumatic shock). The applicant’s injuries were life-threatening and caused serious harm to her health.
7.  Within the framework of the criminal investigation into the bombing, the investigative authorities arrested four persons. On 11 November 2013 the Moscow Regional Court found them guilty of multiple charges, including commission of an act of terror, organisation of a criminal gang and illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Three defendants received life sentence and the fourth one was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
8.  On 25 November 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 11 November 2013 in substance on appeal.
9.  According to the Government, the applicant was granted a victim status. She did not bring a civil action for damages against the convicted persons.
10.  On 25 January 2011 the Russian authorities opened criminal investigation on the charges of negligence against the airport managers and employees and the policemen deployed at the airport. On 22 March 2011 the applicant was granted a victim status in the proceedings. On 5 March 2012 the investigator decided to recall it. On 26 March 2012 the investigator discontinued the proceedings.
11.  On 22 May 2012 the Deputy President of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation quashed the decision of 26 March 2012 and re-opened the case. The proceedings are pending to date.
12.  On 3 June 2013 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 5 March 2012.
13.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil claim against the airport seeking damages resulting from the failure of the airport security to prevent the bombing.
14.  On 27 August 2013 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims for damages. On 16 December 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 27 August 2013 on appeal. The City Court dismissed, inter alia, as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that the suicide bomber had been able to enter the airport owing to the lack of a metal detector at one of the airport entrances noting that such fact should have been established in the course of the relevant criminal investigation.
5.  The applicant was employed by HK Komgrap and Komgrap-Makiš doo, a company based in Belgrade (hereinafter “the debtor”). At the relevant time, the company was predominantly socially-owned (see Stoković and Others v. Serbia, nos. 75879/14 and seq. §§ 10-14, 8 March 2016)
6.  Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations towards its employees, the applicant brought a civil claim seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.
7.  On 23 June 2003 the Belgrade Second Municipal Court (Drugi opštinski sud u Beogradu) ordered the debtor to pay to the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears and the various social security contributions. This judgment became final and enforceable on 25 July 2005.
8.  On 26 September 2005 the applicant applied to the Belgrade Fourth Municipal Court (Četvrti opštinski sud u Beogradu) for enforcement of the judgment of 23 June 2003.
9.  On 18 January 2006 the said court ordered the enforcement of the judgment and awarded the applicant the costs incurred in the enforcement proceedings.
10.  On 27 October 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, seeking redress for the non-enforcement of the judgment in question.
11.  On 27 November 2013 the Constitutional Court held that the applicant had suffered a breach of the “right to a trial within a reasonable time” with regard to the enforcement proceedings. The court ordered the acceleration of these proceedings and declared that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered in the amount of 800 euros (EUR) converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
12.  The Constitutional Court held that since the enforcement proceedings in question had not yet been completed, the constitutional appeals were premature in so far as they concerned the pecuniary damage, and dismissed the appeal in that regard.
4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Forráskút. At the time of lodging the application, he was detained at Márianosztra Prison.
5.  On 29 January 2014 the applicant was convicted of possession of narcotics and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, on 14 October 2014 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.
6.  The applicant began serving his sentence at Szeged Prison on 15 January 2015 and was transferred to Márianosztra Prison on 26 January 2015. He was released on parole on 8 September 2015.
7.  While the applicant was held at Szeged Prison, the per capita space available to him was about 3.2 sq. m; the gross ground surface of the cell was 16 sq. m for five occupants but included the in-cell sanitary facility. He was allowed to spend one hour per day in the open air and could take part in various sports and other activities, thus reducing the time spent in the cell. He was provided with basic standard meals and was able to take a shower twice a week.
8.  At Márianosztra Prison, the per capita cell space available to the applicant was about 2.67 sq. m; the gross ground surface of the cell was 8 sq. m for three occupants but included the in-cell sanitary facility. Only between 26 and 29 January and 11 and 15 May 2015 he was held in a cell where a wall separated the toilet from the rest of the space. He could take a shower twice a week and pursue certain free-time activities. At his request, he was provided with vegetarian meals but very often consisting only of soya beans.
9.  The applicant submitted that he suffered from epilepsy and a personality disorder. In his own submissions he stated that prior to his conviction he had cultivated and consumed cannabis partly because it alleviated his symptoms.
10.  As regards the medical care in prison, the Government submitted that, during the first examination at Szeged Prison, the applicant had stated that he suffered from epilepsy without presenting any relevant documentation. The doctor referred him for a psychiatric examination, which took place on 22 January 2015; but the applicant refused the treatment prescribed by the specialist.
11.  During his first medical examination at Márianosztra Prison, the doctor noted that the applicant’s aptitude for work could be assessed only after external medical records concerning his illness had been obtained.
12.  The applicant suffered an epileptic seizure on 24 April 2015, whilst in his cell. Following medication, his condition improved but he refused the neurological examination recommended by the doctor and any further treatment. He suffered further fits on 4 May and 8 July 2015, following which a neurologist prescribed him anti-epileptic drugs, but he agreed to take them only after suffering yet another seizure.
5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Smederevo.
6.  On 26 March 2007 the applicant lodged a claim with the Žabari Municipal Court against his employer, the Ministry of Interior, seeking payment of certain benefits.
7.  On 23 April 2012 the Požarevac First Instance Court the Žabari Court Unit ruled in favour of the applicant.
8.  On 4 October 2012 the Belgrade Appellate Court revised the First Instance Court’s judgment and rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant received the said judgment on 5 November 2012.
9.  On 12 November 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budenovsk, the Stavropol Region of the Russian Federation. He is a former military officer.
6.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued his former employer military unit.
7.  On 3 May 2001 the Military Court of the Pyatigorsk Garrison (“the military court”) ordered, inter alia, the head of the respondent military unit to re-calculate the period of the applicant’s service, applying the favourable terms of such calculation for the time when the applicant had participated in a military operation. The military court obliged the head of the military unit to issue the relevant orders, to calculate and to pay the applicant some additional payments and field allowance for the periods specified in the judgment. The judgment contained information on the indexes and other parameters that should be applied for the awarded amounts to be calculated.
8.  On 14 May 2001 the judgment came into force.
9.  In March 2002 the applicant obtained the writ of execution and submitted it to the Department of the Federal Treasury in Budenovsk.
10.  On 19 March 2002 the Department of the Federal Treasury returned the writ of execution to the applicant on the ground that the military unit did not have an account there, and the judgment contained no specific amounts awarded to the applicant.
11.  On 21 March 2002 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs’ service. On the same day the enforcement proceedings were initiated.
12.  On 19 February 2003 the enforcement proceedings were terminated and the writ was returned to the applicant without enforcement following his request to withdraw the writ.
13.  In 2004-2005 the applicant applied to the domestic courts for clarification of the initial judgment with the view to establish the specific amounts due to him. The applicant’s requests were dismissed as being lodged out of time. The courts noted that, in any case, the matter concerning the awarded amounts should have been resolved by way of an additional decision rather than clarification of a final judgment, and informed that an application for an additional decision should have been lodged before the entry into force of the main judgment.
14.  It is not disputed between the parties that the judgment of 3 May 2001 remained unenforced in the part concerning the payment to the applicant of the second salary and the field allowances for the periods specified in the judgment.
15.  On 24 March 2016, after communication of the present case, the Ministry of Finance of Russia calculated the amount due to the applicant under the judgment of 3 May 2001. According to this calculation, the main debt amounted to 80,220.74 Russian roubles.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Lisichansk-18, the Lugansk region of Ukraine.
5.  In 1972 the applicant suffered 100 per cent disability as a result of a traffic accident. In 1994 the Lisichansk Town Court of the Lugansk Region of Ukraine found the State Health Care Institution of the Sanitary and Epidemiology Monitoring of the Ministry of Railways of the Russian Federation (“the institution”) responsible for the accident and ordered it to pay to the applicant compensation and to reimburse his medical expenses. Since that time, the applicant has been involved in several sets of proceedings concerning various types of allowances and compensation due to him.
6.  On 17 July 1995 by the Lisichansk Town Court ordered the increase of the monthly payments due to the applicant in respect of compensation, allowances and medical expenses. It appears that the debtor institution complied with the judgment in part and in May 2000 discontinued payments due under the judgment.
7.  On 31 March 2006 the Perm Regional Court of Russia allowed the applicant’s request for compulsory execution of the above judgment in Russia as from May 2000. It was enforced on 30 March 2007.
8.  The applicant sued the defendant institution for medical expenses, various types of allowances and compensation, as well as index-linking and arrears in the respective payments, and acquired several judgments by Russian courts in his favour listed in Appendixes I and II.
9.  In course of the proceedings the defendant institution was replaced by the Federal Health Care Institution “Hygiene and Epidemiology Center of the Perm Region and the Komi-Perm Autonomous Region” and subsequently by Federal Health Care Institution “Hygiene and Epidemiology Center of the Perm Region”, its legal successors.
10.  He complained about non-enforcement to the Ministry of Finance, the prosecutor’s office and various other authorities, but to no avail.
11.  The judgments were enforced fully or in part on dates listed in Appendixes I and II. Some of them have not been enforced, as shown in the tables below.