coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is detained in Chișinău.
5.  On 24 August 2011 the applicant was taken into police custody on charges of murder and unauthorized possession of a firearm. He was remanded in custody by the Centru District Court on 28 August 2011 and his detention was subsequently extended every thirty days until 21 January 2012 on the grounds that given the seriousness of the charges against him, he might abscond, re-offend and interfere with the investigation. The applicant did not appeal against those decisions.
6.  On 17 January 2012 the applicant’s case was committed for trial and his detention was extended by the court every three months, finding that the grounds which justified his initial detention had remained valid.
7.  In his appeals against the decisions of 12 April, 10 June and 10 July 2013 the applicant complained, inter alia, about the length of his detention which, in his view, was no longer justified. He argued that his detention pending trial had already exceeded the twelve-month time-limit set under Article 186 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the courts had not put forward any exceptional circumstance justifying such a long detention period, while the seriousness of charges could not by themselves constitute sufficient ground for his extended deprivation of liberty.
8.  By decisions of 23 April, 20 June and 25 July 2013 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.
9.  By a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 17 September 2014 the applicant was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to twenty‑three years of imprisonment.
10.  On 28 September 2011 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 13 in Chișinău where he was detained until 4 December 2014.
11.  According to the applicant, he was detained in cells with poor lighting, damp walls, and accommodating six inmates in an area of 6 square metres. Due to overcrowding, the applicant had to share a bed with another inmate with whom he took turns to sleep. During his detention the applicant did not receive any bedding or clothing. Certain inmates were diagnosed with tuberculosis or HIV and had bleeding wounds. He was allowed to walk outside the cell only one hour per day. Without a functional ventilation system, in summer the air indoors was hot, humid and smelly which made it difficult to breathe. In cold weather the heating was not turned on and the temperature in the cells was extremely low. The squat toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell. The prison laundry was not operational and the applicant was unable to wash his clothes.
12.  On 18 April 2014 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office about the applicant’s detention conditions in prison no. 13. By a letter of 15 May 2014 the Department of Penitentiary Institutions denied the complaints on overcrowding, TB infected inmates, insufficient food and medical assistance.
4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in Bolu F-type prison.
5.  On 10 December 2007 the applicant wrote a letter to a member of parliament, in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan by using “Kürt Halk Önderi”, meaning the leader of Kurdish people.
6.  Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicant was found guilty of breaching prison order by the Kocaeli F- type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as “the Board”) and on 24 December 2007 the applicant was sentenced to 13 days’ solitary confinement, on account of his statements in the above mentioned letter.
7.  On 17 January 2008 the Kocaeli Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant’s objection.
8.  On 14 February 2008 the Kocaeli Assize Court upheld the judgment of 17 January 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 28 April 2008 the daily newspaper B. published an article under the headline “Mob Lawyer joins the Supervisory Board”, describing the applicant as an extortionist.
6.  On 27 May 2008 the applicant’s representative asked the publisher to publish a correction of that information. The publisher neither replied nor published a correction of the disputed information.
7.  On 9 July 2008, after the expiry of the deadline envisaged in the relevant provisions of the Media Act (Zakon o medijima) to publish a correction, the applicant brought a civil action against the publisher in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu), claiming non-pecuniary damage.
8.  On 10 July 2009 the publisher replied stating in particular that the applicant had failed to submit a power of attorney with his request.
9.  At a hearing held on 31 January 2012 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court heard evidence from the applicant who said that he had authorised his representative to act on his behalf vis-à-vis the publisher.
10.  On 31 January 2012 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court, relying on sections 22(2) and 40(3) of the Media Act, declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible. The first-instance court held that the request for the publication of a correction of the disputed information had not been signed by a duly authorised person because the applicant had not proved that his representative had actually submitted a power of attorney with the request.
The relevant part of the decision reads:
“In his testimony, the [applicant] stated that he had given power of attorney to his counsel, [Lj.P], authorising her to institute both criminal and civil proceedings for defamation ... He was present during the preparation of a draft of the request for the correction of the disputed information ...
...
This court does not accept the [applicant]’s evidence because the [applicant] has no direct knowledge of what was ultimately sent to the defendant ... On the other hand, the [applicant’s] statement concerning the granting of a power of attorney is of no relevance for the solution to the specific legal issue ...
...
Given that the request for the publication of a correction of the disputed information was not signed by the [applicant], but by his counsel, [Lj.P.], and that it was not accompanied with a power of attorney, the [applicant] has not proved that he had properly requested the publication of a correction of the disputed information ... an action which is, pursuant to section 22(2) of the Media Act, a procedural requirement for bringing a civil action for non-pecuniary damage against the publisher ...”
11.  On 19 November 2012 the Šibenik County Court (Županijski sud u Šibeniku) dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance decision.
12.  On 14 March 2013 the Constitutional Court declared a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant inadmissible on the grounds that there was “no constitutional issue” to be examined.
5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Tunceli.
6.  On 5 April 2007 the applicant attended a concert performed by a band called “Grup Yorum” in the Hozat district of Tunceli.
7.  On 17 October 2007 the Malatya public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Malatya Assize Court, charging the applicant 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 applicant had chanted the following slogans during the 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” (“Devrimci tutsaklar onurumuzdur”); and “Victory on mountains, emancipation at the front; long live victory, long live resistance” (“Dağlarda zafer, cephede kurtuluş; yaşasın zafer, yaşasın direniş”).
8.  During the investigation and the proceedings against him, the applicant stated that he had attended the concert in question and chanted the slogans “Music shall not stop, dance shall continue” (“Türküler susmaz , halaylar sürer”) and “We will not be defeated by oppression” (“Baskılar bizi yıldıramaz”). He also noted that he had been on the concert’s organising committee.
9.  On 6 March 2008 the Malatya Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment. In its judgment, on the basis of a police report on a police video recording of the concert of 5 April 2007, the indictment, the applicant’s defence submissions, and the public prosecutor’s observations on the merits of the case, the court considered it established that the applicant had chanted the slogans noted in the indictment. The court considered that the concert, for which legal and administrative authorisation had been obtained, had become a propaganda activity in favour of the DHKP/C, and that the applicant had chanted slogans used by that organisation. The Malatya Assize Court concluded that the applicant had committed the offence of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation.
10.  The applicant appealed.
11.  On 4 July 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
12.  Between 6 October 2011 and 1 August 2012 the applicant duly served his prison sentence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and serves his life sentence in a correctional colony in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region of Russia.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 27 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on charges of illegal possession of firearms, two armed robberies of local post offices, murder of three Russian Post Service cash messengers and attempted murder of the fourth one. On 14 October 2003 the case was sent to the Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic (“the Regional Court”) for trial.
7.  Twice, on 20 April 2004 and 22 May 2007, the applicant was convicted as charged. Both convictions were set aside by the Supreme Court of Russia. On 12 September 2008, in the course of the third round of jury trial, the Regional Court decided, upon a request by a representative of the Russian Post, to close proceedings to the public. It dismissed the applicant’s objections made with reference to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In doing so the Presiding judge referred to the case-file documents containing information about security measures and equipment in post offices, weaponry, schedules and routes of cash messengers, etc. Under the relevant Russian Post regulations that information was classified as “for internal use only”. The Regional Court found that that information was a trade secret protected by the Commercial Secrets Act (Federal Law no. 98-FZ of 29 July 2004) and that its disclosure could have harmed public interests. Every hearing after 12 September 2008 was held in camera.
8.  On 14 December 2008 the jury convicted the applicant as charged. In the last days of December the trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 4 June 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction on one count and upheld the remainder of the verdict and sentence. The hearing was public. The court of appeal held, in particular, that the decision to dispense with a public hearing had been lawful and rejected, in a summary fashion, the relevant arguments by the applicant.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır.
6.  On 30 September 2007 a reading out of a press statement and a march were held in Diyarbakır in order to protest about the conditions of detention and alleged poisoning of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal armed organisation. The protesters gathered in front of the building of the Diyarbakır branch of the Democratic Society Party (Demokratik Toplum Partisi) (DTP) where a press statement was read out. They then marched. The applicant, as a member of the DTP, participated in the gathering and the ensuing march. According to a police report dated 9 October 2007, the applicant was seen while carrying a banner which read “İnsanlık zehirleniyor” (“The humanity is being poisoned”) and applauding together with other demonstrators in the police video footage.
7.  On 9 October 2007 the applicant was taken into police custody. On the same day she was detained on remand.
8.  On 17 October 2007 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor charged the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) on account of the content of the banner she had carried during the demonstration of 30 September 2007.
9.  On 4 December 2007 the applicant was released pending trial.
10.  On 18 March 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged. The court found it established, on the basis of an expert report on the police video footage, that the applicant had been together with other persons who had chanted the slogan “Be Serok Jiyan Nabe” (“There is no life without the leader”) and that she had carried a banner which read “The humanity is being poisoned”. The applicant was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment.
11.  On 9 January 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 18 March 2008.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicant started serving her prison sentence. On 17 July 2012, upon the applicant’s request, the Diyarbakır Assize Court ordered her release from prison, 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.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Adıyaman.
5.  On 17 October 1999 the applicant sat an examination in order to become a public servant. She was successful in the examination and on 27 June 2000 she was notified by the State Personnel Department attached to the Prime Minister’s office that she had been appointed to the post of security officer in the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ, the state-run Electricity Company.
6.  On 4 September 2000 the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ informed the applicant that she would not be appointed to a post in that office as she did not fulfil the requirements of “being a man” and “having completed military service”.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an action against TEDAŞ with the Ankara Administrative Court requesting the annulment of the decision of the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ. In her deposition, the applicant noted that being a man was not a requirement for appointment to the post in question and that she fulfilled all the requirements for that post.
8.  On an unspecified date the general directorate of TEDAŞ submitted to the administrative court that one of the requirements for the post in question had been declared by the State Personnel Department as “having completed military service” and that therefore only men could be appointed to the post. The applicant, being a woman, could therefore not be recruited as a security officer.
9.  On 28 November 2001 the Ankara Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ. The court held that the requirement of “having completed military service” should be considered to apply only to male candidates and that there had been no restriction on women working as security officers in TEDAŞ.
10.  On 30 January 2002 TEDAŞ lodged an appeal against the judgment of 28 November 2001.
11.  On 1 April 2003 the applicant was recruited by TEDAŞ.
12.  On 21 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Ankara Administrative Court, holding that the requirement regarding military service demonstrated that the post in question was reserved for male candidates. The high court therefore found that the administration’s decision had been in accordance with the law.
13.  On 19 March 2004 the applicant was dismissed from her post.
14.  On 30 December 2004 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case, taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court.
15.  On 7 May 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 30 December 2004.
16.  On 12 July 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment was notified to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Novi Sad.
5.  The proceedings began on 19 November 1999 when a third private party brought a lawsuit concerning his tenancy rights in respect of a flat owned by a respondent. The applicant acted as an intervener in these proceedings on the side of the respondent since she had previously signed a tenancy agreement with him.
6.  On 8 April 2003 the first instance court suspended the proceedings (mirovanje postupka).
7.  On 20 August 2003, 20 October 2005 and 13 May 2009 the first instance court terminated the proceedings having deemed the lawsuit as withdrawn due to the fact that the parties had failed to appear at the scheduled hearings. All three of these decisions were subsequently quashed on appeal.
8.  On 29 March 2012 the first instance court rendered a judgment in favour of the respondent and the applicant.
9.  On 22 August 2012 this judgment was upheld on appeal.
10.  On 28 September 2012 the applicant lodged a further appeal with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
11.  On 10 February 2015 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, but rejected her claim for non-pecuniary damages stating that the finding of a violation alone constituted sufficient redress for the said breach. In so doing it noted, inter alia, that the applicant had significantly contributed to the length of proceedings in question.
5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Sanski Most.
6.  By a judgment of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 23 May 2005, which became final on 11 September 2007, the Republika Srpska (an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay the applicant 42,767 convertible marks (BAM)[1] on account of pecuniary damage together with default interest calculated from 23 May 2005 until final payment.
7.  On 1 February 2010 the applicant submitted a request for the issuance of the writ of execution in his case, which request he amended on 30 August 2010.
8.  On 18 October 2010 the applicant submitted a request for the acceleration of the proceedings before the Banja Luka Court of First Instance.
9.  On 15 November 2010 the Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued the writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju).
10.  On 18 March 2011 the Banja Luka Court of First Instance rejected the objections against its decision of 15 November 2010, as well as the applicant’s request for the payment of the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
11.  On 31 May 2011 the Banja Luka Court of First Instance made certain corrections to its decision of 18 March 2011.
12.  On 15 December 2011 the Banja Luka Court of Second Instance quashed the decision of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 18 March 2011 and remitted the case for reconsideration.
13.  On 26 March 2012 the applicant submitted a request for the acceleration of the proceedings before the Banja Luka Court of First Instance.
14.  On 12 April 2012 the Banja Luka Court of First Instance partially granted the objection of the Republika Srpska against the writ of execution.
15.  On 23 April 2012 the applicant appealed the decision of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 12 April 2012. On 11 June, 13 July, and 21 November 2012, and on 15 January 2013 the applicant submitted further requests for the acceleration of the proceedings before the Banja Luka Court of Second Instance.
16.  On 21 January 2013 the Banja Luka Court of Second Instance rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 12 April 2012.
17.  On 7 October 2014 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina ruled in favour of the applicant that the enforcement proceedings before the Banja Luka Court of First Instance had not been finalised within a reasonable time. It further ordered the Banja Luka Court of First Instance to urgently expedite the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case. The Constitutional Court considered this to be sufficient just satisfaction and rejected the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage.
18.  On 8 November 2016 the final decision in question was enforced in cash, regarding the principal amount and the statutory default interests. On 5 July 2017 the costs of the enforcement proceedings and related statutory default interests were also fully paid to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Adıyaman.
5.  On 21 March 2007 the applicant participated in the Newroz (Kurdish New Year) celebrations held in Malatya.
6.  On an unspecified date the Malatya public prosecutor filed an indictment charging the applicant and twenty other people with disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The public prosecutor claimed that the applicant had waved a green, yellow and red flag symbolising the PKK.
7.  On 6 March 2008 the Malatya Assize Court convicted all of the accused as charged, including the applicant. On the basis of evidence in the case file, the court found it established that one of the accused, Ms N.K., had made a press statement, and the other accused, including the applicant, had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and its leader. The court also noted that the accused had waved the so-called flag of the PKK. The applicant was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment.
8.  On 31 May 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 6 March 2008.
9.  On 21 December 2011 the applicant started serving his prison sentence.
10.  On 12 July 2012 the Malatya Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release from prison in accordance with Law no. 6352, which had entered into force on 5 July 2012 and had amended certain provisions of Law no. 3713.
11.  On 12 December 2012 the Malatya Assize Court decided to suspend the execution of the applicant’s prison sentence in accordance with provisional section 1 of Law no. 6352. The suspension was for a period of three years, on the condition that he did not commit a terrorism-related offence during that period.