coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1992 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 7 December 2009 the applicant was arrested.
8.  On 9 December 2009 the applicant was placed in detention on remand by the judge at the Istanbul Assize Court on suspicion of committing crimes on behalf of an illegal terrorist organisation, disseminating propaganda for the same organisation, storage of hazardous materials, and damage to public property.
9.  On 30 December 2009 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed his indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court.
10.  On 6 May 2010 the first hearing was held before the Istanbul Assize Court. At the end of the hearing the court ordered the continuation of his detention in the presence of the applicant.
11.  The applicant filed an objection against this decision. On 20 May 2010 the 10th Chamber of Istanbul Assize Court dismissed this objection without holding an oral 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 10 December 2010 the applicant was released from detention on remand.
13.  At the time when the application was lodged, the proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the first-instance court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Mersin.
5.  The applicant is a teacher in primary school and at the material time she was a member and secretary of the local branch of the trade union of Education and Science Workers (Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası).
6.  On 28 November 2008 the applicant participated in a demonstration organised by the above mentioned trade union on the theme “No to violence against women”.
7.  On 29 June 2009 the District Directorate of National Education imposed a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand on the applicant for her participation in the aforementioned demonstration under Article 125 of the Law no. 657 on Civil Servants.
8.  On 10 July 2009 the applicant objected to this decision and requested its annulment.
9.  On 29 July 2009 the Disciplinary Board of the Yenişehir district governor dismissed the applicant’s objection considering that the contested decision was in accordance with law and there were no grounds for its annulment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Antalya.
5.  The applicant is a teacher in a high school. At the material time he was a member of the local branch of the trade union of Education and Science Workers (Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası).
6.  In May 2009, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant for putting up a notice encouraging the participation in a press statement published by his Union on the notice board that was set aside for that particular purpose in their office, and for distributing it in one of the common areas at school.
7.  On 30 September 2009 the District Directorate of National Education imposed a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand on him, for putting up and distributing notices produced by the trade union, of which he was a member, under Article 125 of the Law no. 657 on Civil Servants.
8.  On 6 October 2009 the applicant objected to this decision and requested its annulment.
9.  On 15 October 2009 the Disciplinary Board of the Kepez district governor dismissed the applicant’s objection considering that the contested decision was in accordance with law and there were no grounds for its annulment.
4.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1967 respectively and live in Mersin and Diyarbakır.
5.  The applicants were civil servants for tax offices attached to the Ministry of Finance in Mersin and Diyarbakır. At the material time they were members of the local branch of the trade union Büro Emekçileri, which is affiliated to Trades Union Confederation of Public Employees (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu-“KESK”).
6.  In March and April 2009, the applicants were informed of the disciplinary investigations that were initiated against them for having participated in a statement to the press organised by the trade union of which they were members and were invited to send their defence submissions.
7.   Subsequently, the disciplinary sanctions of warning and reprimand were imposed on the applicants for their participation in the aforementioned trade union activities under Section 125 of the Law no. 657 on Civil Servants.
8.  The applicants objected to these decisions and requested their annulment.
9.  In May 2009 the Disciplinary Board of the tax offices dismissed the applicants’ objections considering that the contested decisions were in accordance with law and there were no grounds for annulment.
5.  The first applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia. The second applicant is a privately owned company, founded by the first applicant in 1990, with its registered seat in Ilijaš - Podlugovi, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6.  On 19 December 2001 the second applicant requested a licence to build a petrol station on the main highway in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7.  On 21 October 2002 the Federal Road Directorate of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Directorate”) rejected the request. The second applicant appealed on 31 October 2002.
8.  On 28 February 2003 the Federal Ministry upheld that decision.
9.  On 28 March 2003 the second applicant initiated proceedings for judicial review before the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Supreme Court”).
10.  On 25 August 2005 and 24 August 2006 the second applicant urged the Supreme Court to expedite the proceedings.
11.  On 22 November 2006 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 21 October 2002 and 28 February 2003 (see paragraphs 7-8 above) on procedural grounds, and remitted the case to the Directorate.
12.  On 9 May 2007 the second applicant informed the Supreme Court that the decision of 22 November 2006 had not been enforced yet.
13.  On 16 August 2007 the Directorate rejected the second applicant’s request. On 30 August 2007 the second applicant appealed.
14.  On 8 November 2007 the second applicant complained to the Administrative Inspectorate of the Federal Ministry of Justice about the inaction of the administration.
15.  On 12 November 2007 the Federal Ministry upheld the decision of 16 August 2007 (see paragraph 13 above). The decision was served on the second applicant on 18 April 2008.
16.  On 30 May 2008 the second applicant initiated proceedings for judicial review with the Supreme Court seeking it to quash the decisions of 16 August 2007 and 12 November 2007 (see paragraphs 13 and 15 above). On 31 August 2009 the Supreme Court referred the claim to the Mostar Cantonal Court, as the competent court.
17.  On 27 November 2009 the Mostar Cantonal Court rejected the application for judicial review.
18.  On 6 January 2010 the applicant submitted a request for an extraordinary review of the decision of 27 November 2009 with the Supreme Court, which request was rejected as unfounded on 12 May 2010. That decision was served on the second applicant on 9 July 2010.
19.  On 6 September 2010 the second applicant lodged a constitutional appeal before the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”) complaining, notably, about the length of the above administrative proceedings.
20.  On 23 December 2013 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as unfounded. It noted that the relevant proceedings had lasted eight years and five months in total, that seven different decisions had been rendered by the competent authorities and that, therefore, the length of the proceedings had not been excessive.
8.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1923 respectively and lived in Bucharest, where the first applicant still lives.
9.  The applicants were co-owners of two adjacent plots of land in Montenegro.
10.  On 13 June 2009, during a visit to the plots, the first applicant noticed a metal fence built partly on their property. The fence divided the two plots of land and made it impossible for them to access one plot from the other. It appears that the fence had been erected some time in February 2009.
11.  On 15 July 2009 the applicants, who had legal representation, instituted civil proceedings for trespass (radi smetanja posjeda) against B.Ć., their neighbour.
12.  On 27 June 2011 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Kotor ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered B.Ć. to remove the fence and pay the applicants 1,435 euros (EUR) in respect of legal costs. The court was satisfied that the applicants had lodged their claim in time, given that the deadline for initiating proceedings was 30 days from the day on which they had noticed the trespass, taking into account that 13 and 14 July were national holidays. In doing so the court relied on section 77 of Property Act (see paragraph 14 below).
13.  On 20 December 2011 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica, ruling on an appeal lodged by B.Ć., quashed the previous judgment and rejected the applicants’ claim (tužba se odbacuje) as submitted out of time. The court held that 13 and 14 July were indeed national holidays when the courts did not sit. It considered, however, that the 30-day period within which the applicants could institute proceedings was mandatory “[in which case] there could be no shifting of the time-limit when its last day fell on a day when the courts [did] not sit”. The time-limit had therefore expired on 13 July 2009, and the applicants had not filed their claim until 15 July 2009.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, are similar to those in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011).
6.  Between 21 and 27 December 1989 many people including the applicants and/or their close relatives involved in this case took part in the anti-communist demonstrations in Bucharest, Timișoara, Brașov, Reșița and Craiova which led to the fall of the communist regime. They were injured or killed by gunfire during the demonstrations.
7.  In 1990 following the overthrow of the communist regime, the military prosecutor’s office opened investigations into the armed crackdown on the demonstrations. The main criminal investigation into the use of violence, particularly against civilian demonstrators, during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and other cities has been contained in file no. 97/P/1990 (current number 11/P/2014).
8.  In a number of cases concerning events in Bucharest and Craiova, the prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation or to discontinue the proceedings. Those decisions were taken between 1990 and 2007. It results from the documents submitted by the parties that, after the adoption of those decisions, the prosecutor continued to examine the circumstances of these cases in the main criminal investigation – object of file no. 97/P/1990 (current number 11/P/2014).
9.  To date, the main criminal investigation appears to be still ongoing. The most important procedural steps were summarised in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and Alecu and Others v. Romania, nos. 56838/08 and 80 others, §§ 7-13, 27 January 2015. Subsequent developments are as follows.
10.  Following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in February 2014, jurisdiction over the case was relinquished in favour of the military prosecutor’s office.
11.  On 14 October 2015 the prosecutor’s office closed the investigation, finding that the applicants’ complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty and partly ill-founded. It also found that some of the facts which had been investigated could not be classified as criminal offences and that some of them were res judicata. The parties have not submitted any information on whether there was an appeal against that decision (see Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania, nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, § 15, 12 April 2016). However, from the information available on the prosecutor’s office website, the investigation is still ongoing and must have therefore been reopened.
4.  Between 1986 and 1987 the applicants took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis.
5.  Considering these benefits insufficient, the applicants together with other 482 people, sued the Russian Ministry of Finance for additional compensation corresponding to non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation.
6.  On different dates in January and April 2011 the Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkaria (“the Town Court”) allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant, including the applicants, compensation ranging between 1,100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 1,800,000 for non‑pecuniary damage.
7.  No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory ten-day time-limit. The judgments became final. Some judgments in respect of several applicants remained unenforced (see “Enforcement status” in the Appendix).
8.  On different dates in 2012 and 2013 the domestic courts granted the defendant authority’s request to extend the time-limit for appeal essentially on the ground that the defendant authority had not been served with the impugned judgments. Subsequently the regional Supreme Court quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour on the grounds that they had been based on retrospective application of the law. The applicants were ordered to repay the sums received under the judgments.
9.  The applicants lodged a supervisory review application. There is no indication that they requested the enforcement proceedings to be suspended pending the examination of their supervisory review application.
10.  Between June and August 2013 the Presidium of the regional Supreme Court partially quashed the appeal judgments as regards the applicants’ obligation to reimburse the sums paid.
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Belgrade.
6.  On 15 June 2004 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident. He suffered severe serious injuries. An investigation into this incident was initiated in November 2004 and terminated in May 2005, with no criminal charges being brought.
7.  On 10 June 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim for non-pecuniary damages with the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade against the Belgrade City’s Transportation Company (Gradsko saobraċajno preduzeċe Beograd).
8.  On 27 December 2007 the Second Municipal Court ruled in the applicant’s favour. On 3 July 2008 the District Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the first instance.
9.  On 23 October 2009 the Second Municipal Court adopted a partial decision (delimičnu presudu) against which the applicant and the defendant appealed on 7 December 2009 and 10 December 2009, respectively.
10.  On 30 September 2010 the Court of Appeals in Belgrade quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Court of First Instance for a re-trial.
11.  In the meantime, on 22 December 2009, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court complaining under Article 32 of the Constitution (a provision which corresponds to Article 6 of the Convention) about the overall fairness of domestic proceedings and their length. The Constitutional Court’s decision was rendered on 4 November 2010. No violation in respect of the applicant’s complaints was found.
12.  Due to applicant’s change to the value of the dispute (vrednost spora), on 31 October 2010 the Court of First Instance ruled that it had no further jurisdiction to examine the applicant’s complaint. The case was then sent to the High Court in Belgrade.
13.  On 20 June 2013 the High Court adopted a partial judgment against which the applicant and the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals in Belgrade.
14.  On 6 June 2014 the Court of Appeals partly quashed the impugned judgment.
15.  It would appear that the case is still pending before the High Court.
16.  Additionally, on 28 October 2014 the applicant lodged a new submission with the Constitutionals Court concerning, inter alia, the length of the impugned proceedings. It would appear from the facts of the case that the Constitutional Court has not yet responded.
5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Ivanovo.
6.  At the relevant time the applicant was a member of the Ivanovo Region electoral commission.
7.  On 23 October 2003 a deputy head of the Ivanovo Region Department of Internal Affairs ordered audio-visual “surveillance” (“наблюдение”) of the applicant’s office. The parties did not submit a copy of that decision.
8.  The surveillance was carried out from 27 October to 5 November 2003 by means of a hidden camera.
9.  The applicant was subsequently charged with abuse of power, an offence under Article 285 of the Criminal Code. While studying the criminal case file he discovered that it contained video recordings of him talking on the telephone in his office.
10.  At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty. He claimed, in particular, that the video recordings were inadmissible as evidence as they had been obtained unlawfully without prior judicial authorisation. He also challenged the authenticity of the recordings.
11.  On 27 September 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo convicted the applicant of abuse of power and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. The court relied on statements by several witnesses, physical evidence, expert reports and the video recordings of the applicant’s telephone conversations. It found that the video recordings were authentic and that they had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
12.  The applicant appealed. He reiterated, in particular, his argument that the video recordings were inadmissible as evidence.
13.  On 12 November 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. The court held that the District Court had correctly declared the video recordings admissible as evidence because they had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sarajevo.
5.  In 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer, the local police, seeking his reinstatement and damages. His claim was eventually rejected.
6.  The first-instance judgment was rendered by the Sarajevo Municipal Court on 17 April 2006.
7.  The second-instance judgment was rendered by the Sarajevo Cantonal Court on 27 March 2008.
8.  The third-instance judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 26 January 2010.
9.  On 19 April 2010 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina complaining under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome and length of his labour dispute.
10.  On 10 April 2013 the Constitutional Court found a breach of the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time and rejected the remainder of the case. It did not award any damages.
4.  Between 1986 and 1987 the applicants took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis.
5.  Considering these benefits insufficient, the applicants together with other 482 people, sued the Russian Ministry of Finance for additional compensation corresponding to non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation.
6.  On different dates in January and April 2011 the Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkaria (“the Town Court”) allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant, including the applicants, compensation ranging between 1,200,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 1,600,000 for non‑pecuniary damage.
7.  No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory ten-day time-limit. The judgments became final but have never been executed.
8.  On different dates the Town Court granted the defendant authority’s request to extend the time-limit for appeal on the grounds that the authorities had not received a copy of the judgment in due course. Subsequently the regional Supreme Court quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour on the grounds that they had been based on retrospective application of the law.
7.  The applicant was born in 1980. He arrived in Russia in 2003. He travelled to Tajikistan on a number of occasions to visit his parents for short periods of time.
8.  On 3 May 2011 the applicant was charged in absentia in Tajikistan with participating in an extremist religious movement, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and an international search and arrest warrant was issued in his name. On 6 May 2011 the Tajik authorities ordered his pre-trial detention.
9.  On 3 November 2013 the applicant was arrested in Moscow and detained. On 4 November 2013 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) ordered his detention pending extradition.
10.  On 4 December 2013 the Tajik prosecution authorities requested the applicant’s extradition on the basis of the above charges. The request included assurances regarding his proper treatment, which were formulated in standard terms.
11.  On 12 December 2013 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 3 May 2014.
12.  An appeal by the applicant of 16 December 2013 was dismissed by the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) on 3 February 2014.
13.  On 29 April 2014 the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention until 3 August 2014.
14.  An appeal by the applicant of 5 May 2014 was dismissed by the City Court on 23 July 2014.
15.  On 9 October 2014 the applicant’s extradition was refused by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, owing to the absence of culpable actions under Russian criminal law.
16.  On 13 October 2014 the applicant was released from detention.
17.  On 13 October 2014, immediately after his release, the applicant was rearrested for violating migration regulations.
18.  On 14 October 2014 the District Court found the applicant guilty of violating migration regulations, fined him and ordered his administrative removal. Allegations by the applicant regarding a real risk of ill-treatment were dismissed, and he was detained pending expulsion. The District Court assessing the risks stated that “[t]he claims of the representative ... are of a speculative nature and not confirmed by the case materials”
19.  The above judgment was upheld on appeal by the City Court on 24 October 2014. Claims by the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention were dismissed with reference to the District Court’s assessment of the case, which took into consideration “...the nature of the administrative offence, the character of the accused [who was criminally convicted in Russia]... the length of his stay in Russia and other circumstances of the case”.
20.  According to the latest submissions of his representative in 2015, the applicant was still in detention.
21.  On 18 December 2013 the applicant lodged a request for refugee status, referring to persecution in Tajikistan and a real risk of ill-treatment.
22.  On 15 September 2014 his request was refused by a final administrative decision of the migration authorities. The applicant challenged that decision in the courts, referring, inter alia, to the risk of ill‑treatment.
23.  On 12 November 2015 his appeals were dismissed by a final decision of the City Court.