coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 28 August 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of child molestation and on the same day he was brought before a judge at the Gaziosmanpaşa Juvenile Court, who placed him in detention on remand.
6.  On 3 September 2007 the applicant filed an objection against the decision on his detention. On 18 September 2007 the Beyoğlu Juvenile Assize Court dismissed his objection on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing.
7.  On 23 October 2007 and 19 November 2007 the Gaziosmanpaşa Magistrates’ Court prolonged the applicant’s detention ex officio.
8.  On 16 December 2007 the Bakırköy public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Bakırköy Juvenile Assize Court, charging the applicant with child molestation.
9.  On 31 December 2007 the Bakırköy Juvenile Assize Court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the basis of the case file, and decided that it had no jurisdiction ratione loci and that the case should be heard by the Beyoğlu Juvenile Assize Court and referred the case file to the latter.
10.  On 24 January 2008 the Beyoğlu Juvenile Assize Court declared itself incompetent ratione loci as well and sent the case file to the Court of Cassation to render its decision on the conflict of jurisdiction ratione loci. On the same date the court also ordered the continuation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the basis of the case file.
11.  On 30 January 2008 the applicant filed an objection against the decision on the continuation of his pre-trial detention. On 14 February 2008 the Bakırköy Juvenile Assize Court dismissed his objection on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing.
12.  On 23 June 2008 the Court of Cassation gave its decision authorising Bakırköy Juvenile Assize Court over the case.
13.  On 13 August 2008 the trial court held a preparatory hearing and ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention on the basis of the case file. On 12 September 2008 and 9 October 2008, respectively, the court ex officio examined the applicant’s detention on remand on the basis of the case-file and decided to extend it.
14.  On 30 October 2008 the court held its first 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.
15.  During the hearings held on 21 January 2009, 14 April 2009 and 21 July 2009, at which the applicant was present, the trial court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention on remand. Between the hearings, which were held with regular intervals of one month, the court ex officio examined the applicant’s detention on remand on the basis of the case‑file and decided to extend it
16.  On 3 November 2009, at the end of the fifth hearing before the court, the applicant was released pending trial.
17.  According to the latest information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and has been serving a prison sentence in Lukiškės Remand Prison since 16 January 2002.
5.  On 16 May 2014 the applicant lodged a civil claim against the State, alleging that he was being detained in overcrowded and unsanitary cells. He also complained that toilets were not properly partitioned from the rest of the cells and thus the prison staff could see him use the toilet. He submitted that his health had deteriorated as a result of the inappropriate conditions of his detention and claimed 450,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 130,300 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
6.  On 19 January 2015 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. It firstly held that the time-limit for claiming damages was three years after the damage arose, and accordingly dismissed the part of the applicant’s claim concerning the period before 16 May 2011 as time-barred. On the basis of documents provided by the prison administration, the court found that from 16 May 2011 to 15 May 2014 the applicant had spent 1,082 days in Lukiškės Remand Prison. During that period, for thirteen days and one afternoon he had had 3.24 sq. m of personal space and on one afternoon he had had 2.65 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the domestic standard of 3.6 sq. m. For the remaining time the personal space available to him was found to be in compliance with the requirement of 3.6 sq. m.
7.  The court also quoted the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) on its visit to Lithuania in 2012. According to that report, nearly all the inmates in Lukiškės Remand Prison were confined to their cells for twenty-three hours per day, with no out-of-cell activities other than outdoor exercise lasting one hour in small and dilapidated yards (see paragraph 13 below). The court noted that the prison administration had not provided any evidence that the situation in the prison had changed.
8.  Furthermore, the court ruled that toilets had not been partitioned from the rest of the cells in the manner required by relevant domestic regulations. It stated that, in accordance with accepted social norms, inability to use the toilet in private was degrading and humiliating to the individual.
9.  The court considered that the applicant had not proved that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention. It awarded the applicant EUR 80 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, taking into account the “scope, intensity and duration” of the violation of his rights and the economic conditions in the country.
10.  The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, arguing that the first-instance court had erred by dismissing part of his claim as time-barred, that the conditions in Lukiškės Remand Prison had not improved and that his health had deteriorated because of them. On 10 November 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s decision in its entirety.
5.  The applicant was born in 1974 in Khabarovsk and is serving a life sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region.
6.  From 25 May 2012 to 10 April 2014 the applicant was held in penal colony IK-56 in the Sverdlovsk Region. He was able to have five short visits in 2013 and one short visit in 2014.
7.  On 15 July 2013 the applicant asked the governor to allow him a short meeting with four adult relatives, his mother, sister and two cousins. He also asked for the meeting to be held without a glass partition between him and his visitors or the presence of a prison officer. The governor signed his decision on the petition: “Rejected. Not allowed under the Code of Execution of Sentences”.
8.  From 15 May to 16 July 2014 the applicant was transferred to remand prison SIZO-1 in Khabarovsk – where his family still lived – to take part in another investigation.
9.  On the day after his arrival at the prison, he asked the prison governor to authorise a short meeting with four family members – his sister, two cousins and aunt – without a physical partition between him and the visitors or the presence of prison officers. By a letter of 21 May 2014, the governor rejected his request. He pointed out that, pursuant to section 18 of the Pre‑trial Detention Act, visits are subject to written authorisation from the official or authority in charge of the criminal case. Furthermore, the Rules of Internal Order in Remand Prisons required that visiting rooms be equipped with a physical partition and that visits be supervised by a prison officer.
10.  On 3 June 2014 the applicant asked the governor to authorise a long meeting with his mother and sister. He relied on Article 89 of the Code of Execution of Sentences (CES) and emphasised that the remand prison was equipped with rooms for long-stay visits which could be used by convicted prisoners serving their sentence in that prison. Three days later the governor replied that the applicable law did not make a provision for long-stay visits in respect of remand prisoners. He referred the applicant to Article 77.1 of the CES.
11.  The applicant subsequently asked the authorities in charge of the criminal case to authorise short visits from his family members. On 11 June and 1 August 2014 the investigator and the deputy head of the investigations department, respectively, rejected his request. They informed the applicant that “the authorities in charge of the investigation were not preventing [him] from having short visits from his family members as long as it did not contradict Russian law, including the Code of Execution of Sentences”.
12.  The applicant challenged the restrictions on family visits before a court of general jurisdiction. According to the information from the Government, all of his challenges were dismissed as unfounded.
13.  According to a certificate issued by the governor on 27 April 2017, the applicant did not have any short or long-stay visits during his time in the Khabarovsk remand prison.
6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Sofia.
7.  The applicant’s grandfather owned part of a real estate. He donated his part to the applicant’s cousins in 1997. The applicant’s grandfather died on 16 January 2003.
8.  On 13 February 2004 the applicant brought proceedings under section 30 of the Inheritance Act 1949 before the Sofia District Court. She claimed that, by donating his part in the immovable property in 1997, her grandfather had infringed her right to a “reserved share” in his inheritance, given that the immovable property in question represented his entire estate. In a decision of 2 March 2005 the court upheld her claim by diminishing the part of the estate donated to the applicant’s cousins and restoring the applicant’s “reserved share” in her grandfather’s inheritance.
9.  Following an appeal by the other party, on 20 September 2007 the Sofia City Court quashed the first instance court’s judgment and rejected the applicant’s claim for restoration of her “reserved share” in her grandfather’s estate. In particular, referring to Interpretative Decision No. 1 of 4 February 2005 by the Supreme Court of Cassation (“SCC”), the court found that the applicant had not complied with the statutory requirements for claiming her reserved share. The court held that, given that her cousins to whom the real estate had been donated could not be considered “heirs-at-law”, the applicant should have claimed the reserved share of the inheritance by means of an “inventory”.
10.  Following a cassation appeal brought by the applicant, on 24 March 2009 the SCC upheld the Sofia City Court’s findings in full in a final decision.
4.  The applicant, who was born in 1972, lives in İzmir.
5.  On 29 November 2004 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation.
6.  On 3 December 2004 the applicant was brought before the judge at the Istanbul Assize Court who placed him in detention on remand taking into consideration the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the risk of absconding.
7.  On 7 December 2004 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the applicant with membership of a terrorist organisation.
8.  On 14 March 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment. The court ordered the continuation of his detention.
9.  On 24 January 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on procedural grounds. The case was accordingly remitted to the Istanbul Assize Court.
10.  On 19 July 2007 the 10th Chamber of the Istanbul 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 25 July 2007 the applicant’s lawyer filed an objection against the decision of 19 July 2007. On 7 August 2007 the 11th Chamber of the Istanbul 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 6 November 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court once more convicted the applicant and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment and ordered his release.
13.  On 30 January 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld this decision.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Horná Kráľová. The second applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Nitra.
5.  On 14 March 2014 a judge of the Nitra District Court remanded the applicants in detention pending trial on the charge of continuous criminal offence of insurance fraud. This followed their arrest on 11 March 2014.
6.  With respect to the first applicant, the District Court decided that there were reasons to suspect that he would influence witnesses, reoffend and continue to make illegal financial gains. With respect to the second applicant, the District Court concluded that there was a reason to suspect that he would interfere with witnesses and his co-accused to influence the evidence they would give.
7.  On 21 March 2014 both applicants lodged an interlocutory appeal, arguing that no specific factual elements had been relied on in the District Court’s decision to justify their pre-trial detention.
8.  On 1 April 2014 the Nitra Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ interlocutory appeals, referring to the findings of the District Court.
9.  On 24 April 2014 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint alleging that the decisions on their detention lacked specific reasons justifying their pre-trial detention. They each requested just satisfaction of 5,000 euros (EUR).
10.  The Constitutional Court joined their complaints and on 24 September 2014 found a violation of their rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. It quashed the relevant part of the decision of the Regional Court and awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,000 as just satisfaction in addition to their legal costs and expenses in the amount of EUR 284.
The Constitutional Court noted that where the ordinary courts used only formal and standard phrases in their decisions on detention (as was the case with the applicants), suspicion arose as to whether they had looked properly at the specific circumstances at hand. It concluded that even though the ordinary courts had referred to some specific facts, which allegedly justified the applicants’ detention, they had failed to explain them in their decisions. Furthermore, the Regional Court had not dealt with some of the applicants’ core arguments and thus had not remedied the shortcomings of the District Court’s decision.
In view of the above, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicants’ pre-trial detention had been based on an arbitrary decision lacking proper and sufficient reasoning.
11.  In the meantime, on 30 May 2014 the applicants had been released and placed under supervised probation.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Costesti.
6.  On 16 July 2008 the Ialoveni District Court found the applicant guilty of disrespectful conduct towards a police officer and sentenced him to five days’ administrative arrest. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 12 August 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal quashed the above‑mentioned judgment and returned the case for a re‑examination on the merits.
8.  On 11 February 2009 the Ialoveni District Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant as a result of the expiry of the time-limit for applying an administrative sanction. Meanwhile, the applicant had already served his sentence. The applicant appealed.
9.  On 13 March 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the district court and discontinued the administrative proceedings in respect of the applicant for lack of corpus delicti.
10.  The applicant brought an action under Law no. 1545 seeking 300,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 18,750 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 11 May 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice concluded that the applicant’s administrative arrest had been unlawful and thus awarded him MDL 8,000 (equivalent to EUR 500) as compensation for the damage caused.
6.  The applicants are five Russian nationals. Their personal details are set out in the Appendix. They are members of one family.
7.  Since 1981 the applicants have lived in a flat in an apartment block provided to them under a social tenancy agreement by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. The landlord was under obligation to perform a major overhaul of the apartment block, and the applicants had to make regular payments for the major overhaul. They paid the amounts due. The overhaul had never been performed, allegedly since 1935.
8.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the Orenburgskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region granted their claims, having noted from expert reports that the apartment block was “64%‒dilapidated” and its state was “unsatisfactory”, and that the flat was 64%‒dilapidated. The court found that the applicants’ living premises, as well as the common property of the apartment block required a major overhaul. The court ordered the Federal State Institution of the Privolzhsko-Uralskiy Military Circuit to perform the major overhaul of the applicants’ flat, as well as of the common property of the apartment block and of the “devices situated in the living premises and serving for provision of communal services” in the apartment block, and to pay each applicant 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
9.  According to the applicants’ observations, on 9 November 2011 the Orenburgskiy District Court awarded the claimants RUB 490,155.43 (approximately 11.681 euros) of compensation of losses. They did not enclose a copy of the judgment or further details as to either the defendant, or the exact list of claimants, the scope of the judgment or its subsequent challenge on appeal by any of the parties.
10.  In 2012 Federal State Treasury Department (Управление) of the Privolzhsko-Uralskiy Military Circuit became a legal successor of the debtor institution.
11.  In 2012 the applicants sued various authorities for penalties for several years of the non-enforcement. By the final judgment of 5 February 2013 the Orenburg Regional Court rejected their claims in full, having found that they were based on an incorrect interpretation of the domestic law and that the applicants had failed to submit a calculation of the penalty.
12.  According to the Government, in December 2013 the applicant’s house was included in a regional housing overhaul assistance program. The authorities prepared a project and the budget documentation, which were approved by the experts.
13.  On 13 April 2015 Ms Konstantinova privatized the flat and acquired a title to it.
14.  According to the Government’s latest observations of 31 May 2017, the judgments had remained unenforced at the material time.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Orhei.
5.  In September 2009 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against a company which was in process of insolvency.
6.  On 18 December 2009 the Drochia District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant company to pay him 24,957 Moldovan Lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 1,413 euros (EUR)) for pecuniary damage and MDL 749 (the equivalent of EUR 42) for costs and expenses. The representative of the defendant company was not present at the hearing.
7.  On 28 December 2009 the secretariat of the Drochia District Court sent a copy of the reasoned judgment to the defendant company by ordinary mail.
8.  On 11 January 2010 an enforcement writ was issued to the applicant by the same court in respect of the judgment of 18 December 2009.
9.  On 10 February 2010, in a different set of proceedings concerning the insolvency of the defendant company, the company’s insolvency administrator updated the list of creditors by making express reference to the judgment of 18 December 2009 and to the exact amounts awarded in that judgment. The court which treated the insolvency issued a decision concerning the updated list of creditors on the same date.
10.  On 26 April 2010 the insolvency administrator of the defendant company lodged an appeal against the judgment of 18 December 2009. The applicant objected to the appeal by arguing that it had been time-barred. He indicated that the time-limit for lodging the appeal had expired twenty days after the serving of the impugned judgment and that the insolvency administrator of the defendant company had been aware of the judgment of 18 December 2009 since in February 2010 he had informed the court dealing with the insolvency proceedings about the judgment in question.
11.  On 28 September 2010 the Bălţi Court of Appeal admitted the appeal lodged by the insolvency administrator of the defendant company and quashed the judgment of 18 December 2009. The Court of Appeal did respond to the objection raised by the applicant and, after re-examining the merits of the case, dismissed the applicant’s action against the defendant company. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law raising the same arguments as in his appeal.
12.  On 26 January 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment of the lower court. The Supreme Court did not make any comment about the applicant’s objection concerning the late appeal.
5.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
6.  On 25 September 2000 the Neamț County Court ordered a state‑owned company to pay the applicant due salary rights.
7.  On 9 October 2001 the Roman District Court ordered a private person to reimburse a loan to the applicant.
8.  On 14 November 2008 the Brașov County Court ordered the municipality of Brașov to leave a plot of land in the applicant’s full property and possession.
9.  On 3 April 2009 the applicant signed a report, drafted on the occasion of the compulsory enforcement of the above judgment, which attested to the restoration of his possession over the land in dispute by placement of metal bars on the free area and by tracing a line with white paint over the area occupied by roads and bridge pillars belonging to the municipality.
10.  On 18 July 2008 the applicant contracted a loan of 250,000 euros (EUR) from a bank, with the plot of land used as guarantee.
11.  On 22 August 2011 the bank sold the land at a public auction for EUR 325,000, since the applicant had failed to repay the loan within the set deadline. In accordance with domestic law, the remaining amount after the recovery of the debt must be returned to the debtor.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Novi Sad.
5.  On 1 June 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings seeking reimbursement for income she had lost because of a car accident.
6.  On 25 February 2008 the Novi Sad Court of First Instance delivered a judgment partly in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay her a certain amount in that respect.
7.  On 30 October 2008 the Novi Sad District Court partly quashed the judgment of 25 February 2008 and remitted the case, upholding the remainder of the judgment.
8.  On 2 July 2010 the Novi Sad Court of First Instance rejected the applicant’s claim in the remitted part.
9.  On 30 January 2012 the Novi Sad Court of Appeal partly upheld the judgment of 2 July 2010 and partly reversed it granting certain applicant’s claims.
10.  On 5 February 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the length of those proceedings, taking into consideration that the civil courts had rendered four judgments at two instances and that the proceedings had been complex.