coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Bălți.
6.  On 5 February 2011 at 1.30 p.m. the applicant was arrested on suspicion of trafficking in human beings and placed in detention for a period of seventy-two hours, which is the maximum duration of detention under the Moldovan law before a detainee is brought before a judge.
7.  On 8 February 2011 at 10.20 a.m. the prosecutor applied to a judge for the applicant’s remand in custody and at 2 p.m. the applicant was brought before a judge, who ordered his remand in custody for thirty days. It is not clear at what time the decision was adopted, but there is a handwritten note on it which states it had been presented to the applicant at 3.50 p.m., followed by the applicant’s signature.
8.  The applicant appealed against the above decision and argued, inter alia, that the detention which had taken place before the court’s decision of 8 February 2011 had been longer than seventy-two hours, which was the maximum duration provided for by law. He also submitted that he had not been given access to the materials in the case-file relied upon by the prosecutor when requesting his remand in custody.
9.  On 17 February 2011 the Bălți Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court did not pay attention to the applicant’s allegation that he had no access to the materials in the case-file.
10.  On 5 March 2011 the prosecutor in charge of the case applied to a judge for a prolongation of the applicant’s detention for another thirty days. A judge examined and upheld it on the same date. He ordered the applicant’s detention until 6 March 2011.
11.  On an unspecified date, the same judge issued a new decision rectifying the date of the validity of the applicant’s order for remand in custody from 6 March to 6 April 2011. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 16 March 2011 the Bălți Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s appeal and quashed the decision of the lower court, after having found that the second decision modifying the date from 6 March to 6 April 2011 had not been taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found therefore that the applicant’s detention had been unlawful since 6 March and ordered his immediate release.
13.  It appears from the materials contained in the case file that the applicant has been convicted at first instance and that the proceedings are still pending before the Bălți Court of Appeal. According to the information provided by the parties, the applicant is currently wanted by the authorities.
5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Moscow.
6.  On 2 June 2015 the applicant asked the Federal Migration Service to issue him a travel passport. His application was refused by reference to the fact that he had been convicted on two occasions and given suspended sentences which had not yet expired (see, for details, as regards the first conviction, Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 23 February 2016, and, as regards the second conviction, Navalnyye v. Russia, no. 101/15, 17 October 2017).
7.  The applicant asked the court of general jurisdiction to overturn the refusal, relying in particular on the Court’s finding of a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in a similar case of Nalbantski v. Bulgaria (no. 30943/04, 10 February 2011).
8.  On 30 September 2015 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court in Moscow upheld the refusal as lawful, finding as follows:
“The complainant’s reference to the European Court’s judgment of 10 February 2011 in the case of Nalbantski v. Bulgaria is unsubstantiated because, in view of Mr Navalnyy’s personality, there are clear indications of a real public interest that outweigh the [complainant’s] right to freedom of movement.”
9.  On 4 December 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment in a summary fashion. On 14 January 2016 the City Court corrected a clerical error in the date of the judgment.
10.  On 27 April 2017 the applicant was assaulted when leaving his office. The attacker threw green dye in his face and he suffered a chemical burn to his right eye.
11.  Faced with the risk of losing sight, on 3 May 2017 the applicant asked for authorisation to go to Spain for eye surgery. On the following day he was issued with a travel passport on humanitarian grounds.
6.  The applicant was born in Qesarat, Tepelenë, in 1977. He is currently serving a prison sentence.
7.  On 14 January and 10 November 2005, following proceedings in absentia, the Gjirokastër District Court and the Court of Appeal, respectively, convicted the applicant of attempted theft resulting in death in collusion with others and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment. That decision became final on 9 February 2007 after the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant’s lawyer. It appears that the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed by his family throughout the court proceedings.
8.  It appears that on 30 March 2007 the applicant was extradited from Greece to Albania.
9.  On 3 May 2007 the Gjirokastër District Court allowed a request by the applicant to appeal out of time and he lodged an appeal against his conviction in absentia.
10.  On 12 November 2007 the Gjirokaster Court of Appeal while requalifying the charges against the applicant on the basis of the evidence obtained during the proceedings in absentia, upheld the applicant’s conviction, ruling that it had become res judicata.
11.  By a final decision of 7 October 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction as decided in the Gjirokastër District Court’s decision of 2005, ruling that it had become res judicata and that the facts and law in the case had been examined previously. It further noted that leave to appeal out of time should not have been granted as the case had become res  judicata.
12.  On 21 February 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court against the Supreme Court’s decision, complaining, inter alia, about the fact that the domestic courts had not given him the possibility of a fresh factual and legal determination of the criminal charge.
13.  On 9 May 2011 the applicant’s lawyer was notified of the Constitutional Court’s decision to dismiss his appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Tbilisi.
5.  On 29 March 2006 the applicant was convicted of conspiracy to commit extortion and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The sentence was upheld on appeal on 30 June 2006. Pursuant to Article 5 § 2 of the Electoral Code and Article 28 § 2 of the Constitution, the applicant was debarred, as a convicted prisoner, from participating in any elections.
6.  On 25 July 2007 the applicant challenged the constitutionality of the ban under Article 5 § 2 of the Electoral Code in relation to Article 28 of the Constitution. He referred to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on prisoners’ voting rights and submitted, among other things, that he would be unable to participate in the parliamentary elections in 2008.
7.  On 31 March 2008 the Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible in view of an identical restriction contained in the Constitution. It noted the following:
“It would be absolutely futile for the Constitutional Court to abolish the impugned provision [Article 5 § 2 of the Electoral Code] as this will not relieve the complainant of the restriction placed upon him by Article 28 § 2 of the Constitution. To achieve [this latter result] it would be necessary to introduce amendments with respect to the relevant provision of the Constitution, which is beyond the Constitutional Court’s competence. ...
... the Parliament of Georgia has directly copied the prohibition contained in Article 28 § 2 of the Constitution into Article 5 § 2 of the Electoral Code. The impugned provision is [thus] analogous to the rule contained in Article 28 § 2 of the Constitution and its constitutionality ‒ which implies the assessment of a constitutional norm’s constitutionality ‒ is not within the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction.”
8.  As a result, the applicant was unable to vote in the parliamentary elections held on 21 May 2008.
4.  The applicant is a Roman Catholic community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, based in Sarajevo.
5.  By decision of 9 May 2003, which became final and binding on 4 September 2003, the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Chamber”) found that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) had discriminated against the applicant in its enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention. In order to remedy the situation it ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure the relocation of public schools housed in the Archdiocese High School building in Travnik, and to reinstate the applicant in the premises within one year. The Chamber rejected a request by the applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
6.  By an agreement of 21 May 2004, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina undertook to reinstate the applicant in the impugned premises by 1 July 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Travnik Municipal Council adopted the implementing decisions, and also one of the public schools was moved from the premises.
7.  On 23 June 2010 the Travnik Municipal Council issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju). On 5 October 2011 the Travnik Cantonal Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for reconsideration. On 17 October 2011 the Travnik Municipal Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case. On 16 May 2012 the Travnik Cantonal Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for reconsideration. On 3 July 2012 the Travnik Municipal Court held that the decisions of the Chamber were not subject to enforcement proceedings. On 12 July 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (28 August 2017), the Travnik Cantonal Court had not yet ruled on the matter.
8.  On 30 October 2012 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina determined that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina had not yet fully enforced the decision of 9 May 2003.
9.  On 17 February 2017 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the public school remaining in its premises, requesting its relocation, as well as damages for the use of the premises for the period between 1 February 2014 and 1 June 2017.
10.  On 14 July 2017 the Municipal Court in Travnik rendered a judgment in the applicant’s favour, rewarding in full its claims finally specified in the proceedings, namely 270,360 convertible marks (BAM)[1] for pecuniary damages and 6,713 BAM for costs and expenses. The Municipal Court also ordered the respondent to vacate the applicant’s premises within 30 days from receiving the judgment. On 20 December 2017 the Cantonal Court in Novi Travnik upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (20 February 2018), the Central Bosnia Canton submitted a revision petition to the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the final judgment in these proceedings. It also appears that the public school has still not been relocated.
4.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, § 12-41, 24 May 2011).
5.  The applicants or their close relatives participated in demonstrations and were injured or killed by gunfire during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest, Brașov and Vișina which led to the fall of the communist regime.
6.  In 1990 the military prosecutor’s offices from several cities opened criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators, including the applicants’ injury or their close relatives’ death during these events. The main criminal investigation was recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (current no. 11/P/2014). In a number of cases the prosecutor decided between 1991 and 1996 not to open an investigation or to discontinue the proceedings. These cases were further examined in the main criminal investigation file irrespective of a formal decision ordering re-opening, applicants being questioned by the prosecutor and raising civil claims, according to the circumstances of each case.
7.  The most important procedural steps were described in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41), and also in Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania (nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§ 6-15, 12 April 2016). Subsequent relevant domestic decisions are shown below.
8.  On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor’s office closed the main investigation, finding that the complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty, and partly ill-founded. It also found that some of the occurrences could not be classified as offences and some were res judicatae (see Anamaria-Loredana Orășanu and Others v. Romania [Committee], no. 43629/13, § 11, 7 November 2017).
9. The decision of 14 October 2015 was annulled by a Prosecutor General’s decision of 5 April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. It was noted that the investigation in file no. 11/P/2014 was incomplete and that the facts could not be established based on the evidence gathered up to that date.
10.  On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the initiation in rem of a criminal investigation for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same circumstances of fact. Up to February 2017 further steps were taken in gathering information from domestic authorities, the prosecutor’s office contacting 211 civil parties, questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of events, planning the hearing of military officers and other participants in the events, verifying the activity of the relevant military units and the audio/video recordings broadcast by radio and television.
11.  At the date of the latest information available to the Court (submitted by the parties on 13 April 2017 and 19 May 2017), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.
5.  The list of applicants is set out in the appended tables.
6.  The applicants were employees of a municipal education institution.
7.  On 13 June 2001 they brought proceedings before the Kolomna Town Court of the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”) against their employer and the town administration seeking recovery of unpaid wages and taxes to various social funds.
8.  On 13 July 2004 the Kolomna Town Court issued a first-instance judgment on the merits of the case. On 22 September 2004 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
9.  On 7 July 2005 the Town Court granted the applicants’ claims awarding each of them a certain amount against their employer (see Appendix I). The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Regional Court on 28 September 2005.
10.  Between 26 June 2001 and 7 July 2005 the court hearings were adjourned twenty-five times due to the respondents’ or one of the respondents’ failure to appear, eighteen times on the claimants’ request and eleven times pursuant the requests by the defendants; four times the first‑instance court adjourned the case as the respondent authorities had been requested to submit additional documents. Moreover, on 11 June 2002 the proceedings were suspended pursuant to a decision by the domestic court on account of the claimants’ alleged failure to appear; on 4 February 2003 that decision was quashed by the appeal court, due to the first-instance court’s failure to notify the applicants of the hearing date. Thus, the period attributable to the authorities amounts to over one year.
11.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the employer institution was liquidated. On 18 October 2005 the relevant record was made into the State Register of Legal Entities.
12.  According to the Government’s submissions of 19 July 2011, on 30 June 2006 the judgment of 7 July 2005 was partially enforced in respect of certain applicants, as specified in Appendix I.
4.  The applicant was born in 1991 and lives in Mersin.
5.  On 30 December 2011 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and of making propaganda for that organisation.
6.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the investigating judge who ordered his detention on remand taking into account the nature of the offences, and the strong suspicion that he had committed the alleged offences, and the risk of absconding.
7.  On 28 March 2012 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an objection against the decision dated 30 December 2011 ordering the applicant’s detention and requested his release. On 29 March 2012 the Mersin Magistrates’ Court dismissed the objection on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing. On 16 April 2012 the applicant’s lawyer filed a further objection against that decision. On 17 April 2012 the Mersin Criminal Court with General Jurisdiction dismissed the objection on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing.
8.  On 5 September 2012 the applicant was released from detention on remand.
9.  On 10 September 2012 the Adana Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, accusing him of being a member of a terrorist organisation and of making propaganda in its favour.
10.  According to the latest information in the case file, the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before an assize court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Podgorica.
5.  Between 3 December 2002 and 15 September 2003 the daily newspaper Dan published several articles about a human trafficking case in Montenegro, in which the applicant’s name was mentioned in various contexts.
6.  On 22 October 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the publisher of the said newspaper, seeking compensation for non‑pecuniary damage due to violation of his honour and reputation caused by the publishing of untrue information about him.
7.  On 4 June 2010, following a remittal, the Podgorica First Instance Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant, ordering the publisher to pay the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damages and to publish the judgment in Dan, the daily newspaper in question.
8.  On 22 October 2010 the Podgorica High Court amended this judgment by awarding the applicant EUR 4,000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, which judgment was served on the applicant on 29 November 2010.
9.  The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal on 14 January 2011.
10.  On 7 April 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 19 May 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Siirt.
5.  On 9 January 2009 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and disseminating its propaganda.
6.  On 13 January 2009 the applicant was brought before the Siirt Magistrates’ Court, who ordered his detention on remand taking into account the strong suspicion that he had committed the alleged offences.
7.  On 3 August 2009 the applicant’s lawyer filed an objection against the above decision on the applicant’s detention and requested his release.
8.  On 6 August 2009 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with disseminating terrorist propaganda, and aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation.
9.  On 10 August 2009, at the end of the preparatory hearing, the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided to prolong the applicant’s detention on the basis of the case-file.
10.  On 8 September 2009 the Diyarbakır Assize Court ex officio examined the applicant’s detention on remand on the basis of the case-file and decided to extend it.
11.  On 1 October 2009, at the end of the first hearing before the Diyarbakır Assize Court, the applicant was released pending trial.
12.  On 31 December 2009 the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him. No appeal was filed and the judgment became final on 8 January 2010.
7.  The applicants were born in 1987 and 1985, respectively, and live in the Hozat district of Tunceli.
8.  On 5 April 2007 the applicants attended a concert performed by a band called “Grup Yorum” in Hozat. During the concert they chanted certain slogans, such as “Revolutionary prisoners are immortal” (“Devrimci tutsaklar ölümsüzdür”), “Revolutionary prisoners are our honour” (“Devrimci tutsaklar onurumuzdur”).
9.  On 17 October 2007 the Malatya public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Malatya Assize Court charging the applicants with disseminating propaganda in favour of the “DHKP/C” (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front), an illegal armed organisation, under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The public prosecutor noted that the first applicant had chanted the slogan “Revolutionary prisoners are our honour” (“Devrimci tutsaklar onurumuzdur”) during the concert. As regards the second applicant, the public prosecutor alleged that he had chanted the following slogans during the same concert: “Mahir, Hüseyin, Ulaş; Fight until emancipation”[1] (“Mahir, Hüseyin, Ulaş; Kurtuluşa kadar savaş”); “Martyrs of the revolution are immortal” (“Devrim şehitleri ölümsüzdür”); “Revolutionary prisoners are our honour”, “Victory on mountains, emancipation at the front; long live victory, long live resistance” (“Dağlarda zafer, cephede kurtuluş; yaşasın zafer, yaşasın direniş”).
10.  During the criminal proceedings against them, the applicants stated that they had attended the concert of 5 April 2007 and had sung along with the musicians but had not chanted the slogans noted in the indictment.
11.  On 6 March 2008 the Malatya Assize Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to ten months’ imprisonment each. In its judgment, the assize court considered it established, on the basis of a police video recording of the concert of 5 April 2007, a report on the video recording, the indictment, the applicants’ defence submissions and the public prosecutor’s observations on the merits of the case, that the applicants had chanted the slogans noted in the indictment. The court considered that the concert in question had become a propaganda activity in favour of the DHKP/C and that the applicants had chanted slogans that were used by that organisation. The Malatya Assize Court concluded that the applicants had committed the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation.
12.  The applicants appealed.
13.  On 4 July 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
14.  On 13 and 14 September 2011 the applicants were informed that they had to start serving their prison sentences within ten days. According to the applicants’ submissions, which were not contested by the Government, upon receipt of the summons to serve the prison sentences, both applicants duly served them.