coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lived in Sarajevo.
5.  By its decision of 3 August 2004, and at the recommendation of the Sarajevo Psychiatric Clinic (the “Psychiatric Clinic”), the Sarajevo Municipal Court instituted proceedings for the applicant’s placement in a psychiatric facility.
6.  On 18 August 2004, the Sarajevo Municipal Court decided to keep the applicant in the Psychiatric Clinic for a maximum of 45 days (counting from the date of his placement, that is 1 August 2004).
7.  On 22 September 2004 the Sarajevo Canton Social Care Centre (the “Social Care Centre”) placed the applicant in the Drin Social Care Home (the “Drin Home”).
8.  On 7 January 2005, the Sarajevo Municipal Court deprived the applicant of his legal capacity.
9.  On 10 March 2005 the Social Care Centre placed the applicant under the guardianship of D.M., one of its employees. Several other employees were subsequently appointed as the applicant’s successive guardians.
10.  By its decisions of 25 February 2010 and 25 December 2014, the Social Care Centre decided that the applicant should remain in the Drin Home.
11.  On 16 September 2015 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”) held that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty had not been “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as he had been held in psychiatric detention without a decision of a competent civil court. It also found that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention had been breached because of the lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention. The Constitutional Court ordered the Social Care Centre to take measures to ensure respect for the applicant’s rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
12.  On 7 December 2015, the Sarajevo Municipal Court restored the applicant’s legal capacity.
13.  The applicant was released from the Drin Home on 14 December 2015.
14.  At the applicant’s request, the Social Care Centre again admitted him to the Drin Home, between 1 January 2016 and 31 March 2016.
15.  The applicant requested an extension of his stay in social care, which request was granted on 1 April 2016. The applicant was thus placed in the Social and Health Care Home for Persons with Disabilities and Other Persons (the “Social and Health Care Home”).
16.  The applicant died on 26 September 2016, while in the Social and Health Care Home.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Belebey, Republic of Bashkortostan.
5.  In October 2007 the applicant and his family moved from Uzbekistan to Russia, apparently for the purpose of obtaining Russian nationality as well as seeking medical treatment for the applicant’s drug addiction.
6.  In December 2007 the Uzbek authorities charged the applicant with large-scale drug-trafficking committed in October 2007 and issued a detention order and an international search warrant.
7.  On 12 July 2008 the applicant was arrested in Moscow and on 14 July 2008 the Dragomilovskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention pending extradition, without setting any time-limit.
8.  On 9 December 2008 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office ordered the applicant’s extradition.
9.  On 28 January 2009 the Moscow City Court confirmed the lawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and detention, and upheld the extradition.
10.  In the meantime, on 4 March 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment of 28 January 2009.
11.  On 10 August 2009 the applicant issued an authority form to lawyers to lodge an application with the Court on his behalf.
12.  On 21 August 2009 the extradition order was enforced and the applicant was transferred to Uzbekistan.
13.  On 28 August 2009 the applicant’s lawyers – who were apparently unaware of the extradition − requested an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in order to stay the removal. On 1 September 2009 the Court indicated the relevant measure to the Russian Government.
14.  However, after the Russian Government had informed the Court about the extradition on 21 August 2009, the interim measure was lifted on 7 October 2009.
15.  The parties submitted no information on related events in Uzbekistan.
16.  On an unspecified date the applicant joined his family in Russia.
4.  The list of applicants is set out in the appended tables.
5.  On the dates indicated in the appended tables the applicants obtained monetary court awards against the Municipal Unitary Enterprise Passenger Transport Company of Kotlas (MUP Kotlas Passazhirskoye avtotransportnoye predpriyatiye – муниципальное предприятие муниципального образования Котлас «Пассажирское автотранспортное предприятие»).
6.  Some of the judgments in the applicants’ favour have been partly enforced during the insolvency proceedings in respect of the company (see paragraphs 7-10 below), while others remained unenforced to date.
7.  The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise. It was set up by the municipality of Kotlas. The company provided transport services in the town. It had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it.
8.  As submitted by the applicants, the prices for the transport services in the town of Kotlas were regulated by the Administration of Arkhangelsk region.
9.  On 28 September 2007 insolvency proceedings started in respect of the company.
10.  On 18 September 2012 the company was declared insolvent and subsequently liquidated.
4.  On 28 February 1996 the applicants and the debtor (JSP “Tara” Cetinje) reached a court approved settlement before the Cetinje Municipal Court, whereby the debtor undertook to pay the applicants specified amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
5.  The settlement became final on the same date.
6.  The debtor ultimately paid part of the amounts determined in the settlement.
7.  On 26 May 1997 the Podgorica Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings against the debtor.
8.  On 19 August 1997 the applicants submitted their respective claims based on the settlement.
9.  In the course of the insolvency proceedings the Podgorica Commercial Court acknowledged the applicants’ claims.
10.  On 23 December 2009 the Podgorica Commercial Court terminated (zaključio) the insolvency proceedings against the debtor, but continued the proceedings against the debtor’s estate. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Court on 9 April 2010.
11.  The proceedings are still pending.
12.  On 14 October 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal on procedural grounds.
13.  The court settlement in question remains partly unenforced to the present day.
14.  It transpires from the case file that at the time the court settlement was concluded and became final (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above) the debtor was a company predominantly comprised of State‑controlled capital. The Government neither contested this nor provided any evidence to the contrary.
4.  The applicants were born in 1987 and 1986 and live in Gümüşhane and Erzincan respectively.
5.  On 18 May 2007 the applicants participated in reading out a press statement in commemoration of İbrahim Kaypakkaya, the leader of the TKP/ML[1] (Turkish Communist Party – Marxist/Leninist), who had died in 1973, allegedly under torture in police custody.
6.  On 7 January 2008 the Erzurum public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against fifteen people, including the applicants, charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the TKP/ML, under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). According to the indictment, during the gathering, the second applicant had read out a press declaration containing statements praising the TKP/ML and İbrahim Kaypakkaya, and the following slogans had been chanted by the demonstrators: “İbrahim is our leader”, “Our struggle continues and shall continue”, “İbrahim Kaypakkaya is immortal”, “Down with the USA” and “We will drown fascism in the blood it has shed”. The group had also carried a banner which read “İbrahim Kaypakkaya is immortal – Partizan”[2].
7.  On 31 March 2009 the Erzurum Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to ten months’ imprisonment pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. In its judgment, the assize court held that the applicants had disseminated propaganda in favour of the TKP/ML, given that the second applicant had read out the press statement and the first applicant had chanted slogans. The court based its judgment on a report prepared by an expert regarding a police video-recording of the public gathering in question.
8.  Taking into account the applicants’ good behaviour during the trial and the fact that they had no previous criminal convictions, the court suspended pronouncement of the applicants’ conviction on the condition that they did not commit another intentional offence for a period of five years, under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması).
9.  The applicants filed an objection against the decision of 31 March 2009. In their petition, they stated that the first-instance court had erred in interpreting the facts and the law, and they asked to be acquitted of the charges against them. They further stated that their prosecution had constituted a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
10.  On 20 July 2009 the Diyarbakır Assize Court held that the application of Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the case was in line with the domestic law, and rejected the applicants’ objection without examining the merits of the case. That decision was served on the applicants on 5 August 2009.
5.  The first applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Cetinje. The second applicant was founded in Cetinje in 1990. The first applicant is the founder, the sole owner, and the executive director of the second applicant. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 1 July 2013 an insolvency creditor X (stečajni povjerilac) requested the Commercial Court (Privredni sud) in Podgorica to open insolvency proceedings (stečajni postupak) in respect of the second applicant. In the proceedings before the Commercial Court the second applicant was represented by the first applicant and a lawyer duly authorised by the latter. On 27 December 2013 the Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the second applicant and, inter alia, appointed an insolvency administrator (stečajni upravnik).
7.  On 23 January 2014 the second applicant, through the lawyer, lodged an appeal against the Commercial Court decision.
8.  On 18 March 2014 the Court of Appeals (Apelacioni sud) in Podgorica rejected the appeal (žalba se odbacuje) as having been submitted by an unauthorised person, given that the lawyer had not been appointed by the insolvency administrator. The court relied on sections 75 and 76 of the Insolvency Act (see paragraphs 17-18 below). This decision was served on the applicants on 17 April 2014.
9.  On 12 May 2014 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal.
10.  On 13 May 2014 the applicants’ representative filed an initiative with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud) seeking the assessment of the constitutionality of section 76 of the Insolvency Act in force at the time. There is nothing in the case-file as to the outcome of that initiative.
11.  On 23 July 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal for “not having been lodged by a party to the domestic proceedings or by a person authorised to appeal on behalf of the person whose rights and freedoms were violated”. This decision was served on the applicants on 15 October 2014.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Bijela, Montenegro.
5.  On 1 March 2012 the Herceg Novi First Instance Court rendered a judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered the applicant’s employer “Vektra Boka” AD Herceg Novi (hereinafter “the debtor”) to carry out a re‑allocation of plots for the construction of apartments. This judgment became final on 21 December 2012.
6.  On 15 January 2013 the applicant requested enforcement of the above judgment and the Herceg Novi First Instance Court issued an enforcement order on 31 January 2013.
7.  On 12 June 2015 the Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor.
8.  On 28 January 2016 the Herceg Novi First Instance Court transferred the case to the Commercial Court for further action.
9.  On 22 March 2016 the Commercial Court suspended (obustavio) the enforcement due to the opening of the insolvency proceedings, which decision became final on 11 May 2016.
10.  The judgement in question remains unenforced to the present day.
11.  On 8 February 2013 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings seeking, on the basis of the above judgment, the removal of competing titles from the Land Register.
12.  On 29 July 2015 the Real Estate Directorate terminated (prekinuo) the administrative proceedings because the Commercial Court had commenced insolvency proceeding in respect of the debtor.
13.  On 7 September 2015 the applicant submitted an objection against the above decision. This objection was rejected as being out of time by the Real Estate Directorate on 5 October 2015.
14.  The administrative proceedings are still pending.
15.  On an unspecified day in 2003, the applicant instituted separate civil proceedings against the debtor, as his former employer, seeking reinstatement and damages. Following three remittals, on 3 March 2014 the Herceg Novi First Instance Court rendered a judgment in the applicant’s favour.
16.  On 22 September 2015 the High Court upheld this judgment on the merits, but quashed it as regards the costs.
17.  On 31 October 2016 the Herceg Novi First Instance Court transferred the case to the Commercial Court for further action due to the commencement of the insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor.
18.  On 22 February 2017 the Commercial Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant regarding the costs.
19.  The parties did not inform the Court about when the Commercial Court’s decision became final and was served on the applicant.
6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Muş.
7.  On 19 April 2003 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
8.  On 20 April 2003 the applicant’s statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. During the interrogation, the applicant gave a detailed account of his acts within the illegal organisation PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party).
9.  On 22 April 2003 the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, again in the absence of a lawyer. In his statements before both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied the accusations and maintained that his statements to the police had been given under duress. On the same day, upon the order of the investigating judge, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention.
10.  On 6 May 2003 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code, Law no. 765.
11.  The State Security Courts were later abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
12.  On 19 September 2006, relying on, inter alia, the applicant’s statements to the police, the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 314 § 2 of the new Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment.
13.  On 19 November 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on procedural grounds.
14.  On 30 December 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant again under Article 314 § 2 of the new Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment.
15.  On 20 March 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court.
4.  The applicant, a Syrian national, was born in 1993 and currently resides in Khartoum, Sudan.
5.  On 24 April 2015 the applicant arrived in Russia, being in possession of a study visa. He enrolled in the Izhevsk State Technical University and had his registered residence in the town of Izhevsk. His visa expired on 26 April 2016.
6.  On 4 May 2016 the applicant applied for refugee status alleging the risks to his life and safety in the light of the on-going conflict in Syria. The request and the subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Russian migration authorities and the courts.
7.  On 8 June 2016 the applicant was arrested and put in detention by the migration authorities.
8.  By a judgment of 9 June 2016 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk found the applicant in breach of migration rules, an offence under Article 18.8 § 1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and ordered his expulsion. In order to facilitate enforcement, the court ordered that the applicant be placed in detention.
9.  On 10 June 2016 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic upheld the lower court’s judgment.
10.  On 22 June 2016 the Court indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited, expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from Russia to Syria for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. Since that date the enforcement of the applicant’s expulsion was monthly postponed by the domestic courts.
11.  On 13 January 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on appeal amended the lower courts’ judgments and excluded administrative removal from the sanction, since it would have exposed the applicant’s life to risk in Syria.
12.  On 20 January 2017 the applicant left Russia for Lebanon.
4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is detained in Belovo, Kemerovo Region.
5.  Following the applicant’s arrest on suspicion of drug trafficking, on 14 November 2008 he was placed in temporary detention facility no. 70/1 in Tomsk. He remained in that facility until 20 April 2010. He was detained in cells nos. 91, 1, 7, 55, 4, 56, 51. Each cell measured approximately twenty metres and housed, for the major part of his stay, between 10 and 14 inmates. In the majority of the cells the toilet was merely a hole in the floor. A lavatory pan was installed in three cells, in the corner, and was separated from the living area by a 1.5-metre fence. The applicant was afforded an hour-long walk daily in the recreation yard.
6.  According to the Government the applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place, except for the detention period between 18 November and 2 December 2008. There was artificial lighting, natural and artificial ventilation in the cells; the cells were heated.
7.  On 30 December 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Tomsk found the applicant guilty of attempted drug trafficking and sentenced him to nine years and six months’ imprisonment.
8.  The applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal and asked to ensure the applicant’s presence at the appeal hearing.
9.  On 17 May 2010 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the conviction, having heard a prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer. The applicant was not transported to the hearing.
10.  On 13 February 2013 the Presidium of the Tomsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 17 May 2010 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
11.  On 25 March 2013 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing.
6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul.
7.  On 16 June 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation, namely Hizbullah.
8.  On 21 June 1999 the applicant’s statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. During his interrogation, he confessed being a member of the Hizbullah and gave a detailed account of his acts within the illegal organisation.
9.  On 22 June 1999 the applicant was heard by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, again in the absence of a lawyer. In his statements before both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied the accusations and maintained that his statements to the police had been given under duress. On the same date, upon the order of the investigating judge, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention.
10.  On 30 June 1999 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the former Turkish Criminal Code, namely for membership of an illegal armed organisation.
11.  On 9 November 1999 the applicant was released pending trial.
12.  The State Security Courts were later abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, and the case was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
13.  On 12 June 2008, relying on, inter alia, the applicant’s statements to the police, the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 314 § 2 of the new Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the Assize Court further took into consideration information on computer hard disks and print-outs, which had been seized in a house belonging to the illegal organisation, as well as the statements of several witnesses who had testified against the applicant.
14.  On 4 June 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Muş.
7.  On 30 October 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party).
8.  On 1 November 2001 the applicant’s statement was taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. During his interrogation, he confessed being a member of the PKK and gave a detailed account of his acts within the illegal organisation.
9.  On 3 November 2001 the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, again in the absence of a lawyer. In his statements before both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied the accusations. On the same day, upon the order of the investigating judge, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention.
10.  On 6 November 2001 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code, with membership of an illegal armed organisation.
11.  The state security courts were later abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
12.  On 6 October 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court, relying on, inter alia, the applicant’s statements to the police, convicted him of membership of an illegal organisation under Article 314 § 2 of the new Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment.
13.  On 15 December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first‑instance court.