coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 12 May 2009 the judge at the Istanbul Assize Court decided to restrict access to the investigation file relating to an investigation against the applicant and others pursuant to Section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), which was in force at the material time.
6.  On 31 October 2009 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation.
7.  On 1 November 2009 the applicant’s police statement was taken at the Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, in the presence of his lawyer. He was questioned at length about his telephone conversations that had been intercepted. The police read out the transcripts of the said telephone conversations and asked the applicant to comment on them. He was further questioned in relation to allegations about aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation as well as his participation in several illegal demonstrations on behalf of this terrorist organisation and several incidents of assault and battery. He was further asked questions about a co‑accused’s incriminating statements.
8.  On 2 November 2009 the public prosecutor questioned the applicant in the presence of his lawyer. The prosecutor read out the transcripts of the intercepted conversations to the applicant. The applicant did not deny that he had had these conversations but claimed that they were not made with the intention to plan a terrorist action.
9.  On the same day the judge at the Istanbul Assize Court ordered his pre-trial detention.
10.  On 2 November 2009 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to lift the restriction of access to the investigation file. On 10 November 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court rejected this objection.
11.  On 4 November 2009 the applicant’s lawyer filed an objection against the decision on the applicant’s detention, and requested his release. On 12 November 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court, relying on the public prosecutor’s written opinion, which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative, dismissed the objection without holding a hearing.
12.  On 25 November 2009 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the applicant with aiding and abetting of a terrorist organisation, and looting.
13.  On 4 December 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court accepted the indictment. On the same date the restriction on the file was lifted.
14.  On 26 February 2010 the applicant was released.
15.  According to the latest information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Tuzla.
6.  By judgment of the Mostar Municipal Court of 18 June 2009, which became final on 16 December 2010, company R. was ordered to reinstate the applicant in his previous employment, as well as to pay him a total amount of 16,314 convertible marks (BAM)[1], together with default interest calculated from 20 March 2007 until final payment. The respondent company was further ordered to pay the applicant BAM 2,641 in respect of legal costs, together with default interest calculated from 18 June 2009 until final payment. Lastly, the respondent company was ordered to cover all pension-related contributions in respect of the applicant between 1 January 2003 and 17 January 2007.
7.  On 17 October 2011 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) in this regard.
8.  On 23 February 2012, upon the applicant’s request, the Municipal Court amended its decision of 17 October 2011 by changing the object of enforcement.
9.  On 16 January 2012 the Municipal Court requested the respondent to indicate why it had not reinstated the applicant. On 23 January 2012 it fined the respondent in this connection.
10.  On 1 February 2013 the Municipal Court joined the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case with an earlier enforcement procedure against the respondent.
11.  On 25 June 2014 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found a violation of the applicant’s right to enforcement within a reasonable time, and ordered the Municipal Court to urgently finalise the enforcement proceedings. The Constitutional Court considered this to be sufficient just satisfaction and rejected the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 15 August 2014.
12.  On 18 March 2015 the Municipal Court ordered the sale of the respondent’s property. On 27 April 2015 it transferred the respondent’s real estate to company H., the highest ranked judgment creditor. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision.
13.   On 29 March 2016 the Mostar Cantonal Court quashed the decision of the Municipal Court of 27 April 2015 and remitted the case for reconsideration.
14.  According to the latest information provided by the parties on 28 July 2017, on that date the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case were still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Županja.
6.  On 5 July 2011 the applicant was indicted before the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu) on charges of causing a road accident under Article 272 of the Criminal Code.
7.  The applicant was tried in summary proceedings (skraćeni postupak). On 4 May 2012 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court convicted the applicant as charged and gave him a suspended sentence of four months’ imprisonment with two years’ probation.
8.  On 23 May 2012 the applicant appealed against his conviction and asked to be allowed to appear at the session of the appeal panel.
9.  On 15 January 2013 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu), without informing the applicant or his lawyer, examined the case without holding a hearing. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence.
10.  The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining, inter alia, that he had not been allowed to appear at the session of the appeal panel.
11.  On 18 September 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. That decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 4 October 2013.
4.  The applicants are a family comprising the husband and wife (the first and second applicants) and their child (the third applicant). They were born in 1976, 1978 and 2001 respectively and live in Kayseri.
5.  On 9 August 2001, the second applicant was admitted to a State Hospital in Niğde. She gave birth to the third applicant who has irreversible injuries caused by an intervention performed by that hospital’s medical staff during labor.
6.  In their report of 12 May 2004, the Forensic Medicine Institute concluded that the two members of the medical staff who tended to the labor were equally and solely at fault for the third applicant’s injuries.
7.  On 1 December 2004, the first and second applicants on their own and on behalf of the third applicant, submitted a claim to the Ministry of Health for compensation arising from the third applicant’s injuries.
8.  Following the tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities, the applicants brought an action for damages before the Konya Administrative Court on 2 February 2005. They claimed 30,000 Turkish liras (TRY) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 100,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
9.  In the course of the proceedings, the domestic court decided proprio motu to seek an expert report to determine the amount of pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. In his report submitted on 14 June 2006 to the court, the expert assessed the amount of pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants to have been TRY 194,916.
10.  On 27 June 2006, the applicants requested to increase the amount of their claim for pecuniary damage in the light of the expert report.
11.  On 6 July 2006 the court ruled in favour of the applicants and awarded them the full amount of their initial claims in respect of pecuniary damage, namely TRY 30,000 plus interest running from the date of lodging their claims with the Ministry of Health. It further awarded them a total of TRY 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and interest running from the date of the lawsuit. The applicants’ request to increase their claim for pecuniary damage were dismissed by the court which considered itself bound by the initial claim indicated by the applicants when they lodged their case.
12.  The applicants’ ensuing appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 16 June 2009 and 28 December 2010 respectively.
13.  On 22 January 2010, the Ministry of Health paid the applicants a total of TRY 144,144. Approximately TRY 53,830 of that sum represented statutory interest accrued on the principal judgment award.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Adana.
5.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicant was a member of the Socialist Democracy Party (Sosyalist Demokrasi Partisi).
6.  On 21 March 2007 the applicant attended the Newroz (Kurdish New Year) celebrations in Adana, where he made a speech on behalf of his political party. According to a report prepared on the same day by the police, in his speech the applicant stated that the military forces should comply with the ceasefire declared by the PKK and that a general amnesty should be declared. He contended that people were being detained for referring to Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, as “Sayın (Esteemed) Öcalan” whereas the Prime Minister also referred to him as “Sayın Öcalan”. The applicant further stated that Abdullah Öcalan should not be kept in isolation in prison and that independent doctors should visit him. He lastly made the following statement:
“Do not fire but talk for resolving the Kurdish issue”.
7.  The police report of 21 March 2007 further stated that subsequent to the applicant’s speech, songs with Kurdish lyrics were played and some demonstrators waved PKK flags.
8.  On 6 April 2007 the Adana public prosecutor asked two experts to prepare a report on the police video recordings of the celebrations of 21 March 2007. According to the report dated 16 April 2007 prepared by two persons, the demonstrators chanted certain slogans and waved flags and posters of Abdullah Öcalan from time to time during the celebrations.
9.  On 18 April 2007 the Adana public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Adana Assize Court charging the applicant with membership of the PKK[1] under Articles 220 § 7 and 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code on account of his participation in the demonstration of 21 March 2007 and of the content of his speech. He relied on the police report of 21 March 2007, the police video recordings of the Newroz celebrations and the expert report dated 16 April 2007.
10.  On an unspecified date the Adana public prosecutor amended the charges against the applicant and asked the Adana Assize Court to convict him of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).
11.  On 24 March 2008 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant under the aforementioned provision and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment. The court considered, on the basis of the police report of 21 March 2007 and the expert report of 16 April 2007, that the applicant’s statements had constituted propaganda in favour of the PKK and that the crowd had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK after having listened the applicant’s speech.
12.  On 19 July 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 24 March 2008.
13.  On 11 January 2012 the applicant started serving his prison sentence. On 29 May 2012 the Adana Assize Court granted the applicant early conditional release starting from 3 June 2012.
5.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1950, respectively, and lived in Podgorica, where the second applicant still lives.
6.  On 25 July 2000 the applicants’ mother instituted civil proceedings against Podgorička banka Societe Generale Group ad Podgorica (hereinafter “respondent”) seeking the payment of her savings, which she had deposited with the respondent’s legal predecessor Titogradska osnovna banka Titograd.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicants continued the above-mentioned proceedings in their mother’s stead as she had passed away in the meantime.
8.  On 25 July 2008 the First Instance Court in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the applicants.
9.  On 19 January 2010 the High Court in Podgorica reversed the first‑instance judgment by dismissing the applicants’ claims in their entirety. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 19 October 2010.
10.  On 5 December 2010 the Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicants.
11.  On 3 February 2011 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal.
12.  On 12 April 2012 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ appeal, which decision was served on the applicants on 29 May 2012.
5.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1981 and live in Diyarbakır and Adana respectively.
6.  On 17 August 2006 the Adana public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with Adana Magistrate’s Court charging the applicants and five other persons with praising an offence and an offender under Article 215 of the Criminal Code. The public prosecutor alleged that the applicants had signed a petition in September 2005 which had been drafted in order to be sent to several institutions. The petition read as follows:
“As a person from Kurdistan, I consider and accept Mr/Esteemed Abdullah Öcalan of Kurdistan as a political actor.”[1]
7.  On 19 January 2007 the Adana Magistrate’s Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction in the case due to the possibility of application of section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) proscribing disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. The court then sent the file to Adana Assize Court.
8.  On 24 March 2008 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicants of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section 7(2) of Law No. 3713 and sentenced them each to two years’ imprisonment. In its judgment, the first-instance court found it established that the above-mentioned petition had been prepared for the purpose of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK and its leader and that by signing that petition the applicants had committed the offence proscribed in section 7(2) of Law no. 3713.
9.  On 13 July 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 24 March 2008. On 24 August 2011 the Court of Cassation’s judgment was deposited with the first instance court’s registry.
10.  On an unspecified date the second applicant started serving his prison sentence.
11.  On 19 October 2012 the Adana Assize Court decided to suspend the execution of the applicants’ prison sentence in accordance with Law no. 6352 which had entered into force on 5 July 2012 and which had amended certain provisions of Law no. 3713. The suspension was for a period of three years, on condition that they did not commit an offence through the press, media or other methods of expressing ideas and opinions.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  During the events which led to the fall of the communist regime in Bucharest, on 21 December 1989, the applicant suffered injuries caused by impingement and compression, as a result of which she needed 50 days of medical care, her life not being imperilled.
6.  In 1990 the military prosecutor’s office opened, of its own motion, several investigations into the ill-treatment and injuries suffered by those participating in the events of December 1989. The main criminal investigation was recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (currently no. 11/P/2014). As regards the applicant, an investigation was opened under a separate file and she gave a statement as a witness on 23 June 1994. Her case has been further examined at a later date in the main criminal investigation.
7.  The most important procedural steps were described in the case Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011), and also in Sidea and Others v. Romania ([Committee] no. 889/15 and 38 others, §§ 8-11, 5 June 2018). Subsequent relevant domestic decisions are referred to below.
8.  On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor’s office closed the main investigation, finding that the complaint regarding the offence of attempted homicide committed against the applicant was statute-barred. This decision 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 under file no. 11/P/2014 was incomplete and that the facts could not be established based on the evidence gathered up to that date.
9.  On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the opening of a criminal investigation in rem for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same factual circumstances. Up to February 2017 further steps were taken to gather information from domestic authorities: the prosecutor’s office contacted 211 civil parties, questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of the events, planning the hearing of military officers and other participants in the events, and verifying the activity of the relevant military units and the audio/video recordings broadcast by radio and television.
10.  At the date of the latest information available to the Court (see Sidea and Others, cited above, § 11), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Vilnius.
5.  On 17 April 2009 the applicant was officially notified that she was suspected of having organised the embezzlement of property of high value. On 7 May 2009 the applicant was charged with the relevant offences. She denied her guilt.
6.  On 22 July 2011 the Vilnius Regional Court held that the legal classification of the charges against the applicant was incorrect, because the total value of the allegedly embezzled property was not high. The court reclassified the charges on the basis of a less serious offence, held that the prosecution had become time-barred and discontinued the proceedings.
7.  The prosecutor appealed. On 27 October 2011 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Vilnius Regional Court.
8.  After re-examining the case, on 10 June 2013 the Vilnius Regional Court found the applicant guilty of the charges against her. She was given a fine of 12,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL) (approximately 3,475 euros (EUR)). She was also ordered to pay some of the damages claimed by a company, amounting to LTL 2,800 (approximately EUR 810).
9.  The applicant lodged an appeal, but on 18 October 2013 the Court of Appeal dismissed it and upheld the lower court’s judgment in its entirety.
10.  On 7 January 2014 the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court. On 17 February 2014 a selection panel of three judges refused to examine the appeal, on the basis that it did not comply with Article 368 § 2 and Article 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”) (see paragraphs 15 and 16 below). The chair of the selection panel, Judge V.G., was the father of M.G., who had been the prosecutor in the case against the applicant before the first-instance and the appellate courts.
11.  The Supreme Court consists of two divisions: Civil and Criminal. The Criminal Division has sixteen judges in it.
5.  The applicants were born in 1968, 1960, 1966, 1962, 1959, 1955 and 1954, respectively, and live in Novi Travnik and Bugojno, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6.  By seven judgments of the Travnik Municipal Court and the Bugojno Municipal Court, of 19 January 2007, 15 May 2008, 19 January 2006, 28 October 2011, 2 February 2009, 1 September 2009 and 9 April 2004, respectively, the applicants’ employers, two companies manufacturing weapons and military technology, were ordered to pay them various sums in respect of unpaid work-related benefits together with default interest at the statutory rate and legal costs. The judgments became final on 24 August 2007, 15 May 2008, 19 January 2006, 26 November 2011, 20 August 2009, 13 October 2009 and 13 April 2005, respectively.
7.  The applicants’ winding-up petitions were rejected on 27 May 2010 and 14 February 2011, respectively, because the Federal Ministry of Energy had refused authorisation (see paragraph 14 below). Consequently, in accordance with the 2003 Insolvency Act, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina became liable for the debts of the applicants’ employers (see paragraph 14 below).
8.  The Sarajevo Municipal Court issued enforcement orders on 9 November 2011, 21 February 2012, 17 April 2012, 25 April 2012, 5 July 2012, 27 March 2012 and 9 August 2012, respectively, in which the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was designated as a debtor. They were transferred to the competent bank and were listed among the charges in the federal budget.
9.  On several occasions thereafter the bank informed the competent courts that the enforcement was not possible because the budgetary funds intended for that purpose had already been spent.
10.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”).
11.  On 17 March 2015 (decision no. AP 2892/13) the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the applicants’ cases on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour. It ordered the government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to take the necessary steps in order to secure the payment of its debt arising from the final judgments within a reasonable time. Although the applicants submitted a claim for non-pecuniary damages, the Constitutional Court did not award any compensation.
12.  On the following dates in 2017 the final judgments in the applicants’ favour were fully enforced:
(i) on 10 January 2017 in respect of Mr Mujo Zahirović;
(ii) on 9 January 2017 in respect of Ms Nedžvija Mandara;
(iii) on 13 April 2017 in respect of Mr Miralem Mustajbegović;
(iv) on 17 January 2017 in respect of Mr Nihad Hrnjica;
(v) on 11 January 2017 in respect of Mr Zijad Džugum;
(vi) on 17 January 2017 in respect of Ms Đevada Hodžić; and
(vii) on 13 April 2017 in respect of Mr Fadil Pandžo.
The payments made in the applicants’ favour included the reimbursement of the costs sustained for the enforcement procedure.