coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Stara Zagora.
6.  The applicant worked as head teacher in a secondary school in Stara Zagora.
7.  On 19 July 2002 the head of the Regional Education Inspectorate (“the REI”) of the Ministry of Education dismissed the applicant on disciplinary grounds.
8.  The applicant brought a claim against the REI, challenging the order for her dismissal and seeking reinstatement and compensation for lost earnings.
9.  By a judgment of 2 April 2003 the Stara Zagora District Court (Районен съд) allowed the applicant’s claims. That judgment was upheld by the Stara Zagora Regional Court (Окръжен съд) and the Supreme Court of Cassation on 18 July 2003 and 24 November 2005 respectively. In the course of the proceedings, neither the opposing party nor any of the courts raised any doubts as to whether the REI was the correct defendant in the case.
10.  Following the entry into force of the judgment of 24 November 2005, the applicant applied to take up her duties on 6 December 2005. On the same day a new order for her dismissal was issued by the head of the REI.
11.  On an unspecified date, at the latest in January 2006, the applicant lodged an appeal against the dismissal order with the Stara Zagora District Court, challenging its lawfulness, and seeking reinstatement to her previous post and compensation for loss of income. It appears from the case file that at the first court hearing, the date of which was not specified, the REI argued that it was not the proper defendant in the case and that the claims had to be addressed to the secondary school in which the applicant had been working prior to her dismissal. The REI submitted that Article 61 § 2 of the Labour Code and section 37(4) of the Education Act provided that the applicant’s employer was the school.
12.  During a court hearing on 12 April 2006 the District Court ruled in favour of the objection, and, reasoning that the proper defendant in the case was the school, discontinued the proceedings.
13.  The applicant appealed against that decision before the Stara Zagora Regional Court.
14.  On 26 May 2006 the Regional Court quashed the decision of the lower court, explicitly stating that the proper defendant in the applicant’s case was the REI. It remitted the case to the first-instance court for examination on the merits.
15.  By a judgment of 8 December 2006 the District Court allowed the applicant’s claims.
16.  Following an appeal lodged by the REI, on 27 April 2007 the Regional Court upheld the judgment.
17.  The REI lodged an appeal on points of law. On 16 April 2008 the Plovdiv Appeal Court (Апелативен съд), sitting as a court of cassation according to a legislative amendment entered into force in July 2007, quashed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the applicant’s claims. It found that the REI was not the applicant’s employer under the law and was not, therefore, the proper defendant in the case. Thus, the claims brought against it were unfounded. The court ruled that the applicant’s claims had to be brought against the school in which she had been working prior to her dismissal, as that school was her employer.
6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Vlora.
7.  On 30 May 2007 the Vlora District Court ordered the Vlora Construction Police (Policia e Ndërtimit dega Vlorë) to pay the applicant 2,795,956 Albanian leks (“ALL”) for the unjustified destruction of his property.
8.  On 11 June 2008 the decision was upheld by the Vlora Court of Appeal and became final.
9.  On 11 September 2008 an enforcement writ was issued.
10.  From 2009 to 2012 the bailiff unsuccessfully sought the enforcement of the decision from the Vlora Construction Police and the National Urban Construction Inspectorate (Inspektorati Ndërtimor Urbanistik Kombëtar).
11.  To date, the final decision has remained unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1984 and is detained in Saint-Petersburg.
5.  On 22 April 2004 he was arrested on suspicion of murder.
6.  On 24 April 2004 the Vyborgskiy Federal District Court of Saint-Petersburg authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.
7.  On 7 February 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. The court referred to the gravity of charges, the applicant’s character, lack of permanent residence in Saint-Petersburg, and risk of absconding or re-offending.
8.  On 7 April 2005 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor and extended the applicant’s detention without specifying any reasons.
9.  On 15 September 2005, 21 October 2005 and 15 December 2005 when extending pre-trial detention, the District Court reproduced the grounds for detention described above.
10.  On 2 March 2006 the Saint-Petersburg City Court quashed the detention order of 15 December 2005 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
11.  On 16 March 2006, 22 March 2006 and 21 June 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention referring to the gravity of charges, absence of permanent residence, his character, possibility of absconding and committing crimes. The applicant and his lawyer did not attend the hearing on 21 June 2006.
12.  On 30 June 2006 the Vyborgskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg convicted the applicant of murder and theft.
13.  On 31 January 2007 the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld his conviction on appeal. As regards the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 21 June 2006, the court noted that the lower court had failed to ensure the applicant’s and his lawyer’s presence at the hearing of 21 June 2006. However, in view of the applicant’s conviction, it discontinued the appeal proceedings finding them unnecessary.
5.  Mr Semenov was born in 1959 and lives in Tver.
6.  Ms Bachurina was born on 8 November 1978 and lived before her arrest in the village of Strelnitsa, Voronezh Region.
7.  On 13 April 2006 Mr Semenov was arrested on suspicion of several counts of aggravated bribery. On 17 April 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court of Tver ordered his placement in custody. The detention was further extended by the District Court on 11 July and 11 September 2006.
8.  Mr Semenov appealed: on 14 July 2006 against the detention order of 11 July 2006 and on 12 September 2006 against the order of 11 September 2006.
9.  On 22 August and 3 October 2006, respectively, the Tver Regional Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the detention orders.
10.  On 11 October 2006 the Regional Court extended Mr Semenov’s detention.
11.  Nine days later Mr Semenov lodged an appeal statement with the Russian Supreme Court via the Regional Court.
12.  On 16 November 2006 the Regional Court dispatched the case-file to the Supreme Court which on 11 January 2007 upheld the decision of 11 October 2006.
13.  On 26 December 2006 the Regional Court once again extended the detention.
14.  Between 11 and 30 January 2007 Mr Semenov and his co-defendants lodged their appeals with the Supreme Court via the Regional Court. On 1 March 2007 the Regional Court transmitted the case-file to the Supreme Court which on 11 April 2007 upheld the order.
II.  THE CASE OF MS BACHURINA (APPLICATION No. 56124/07)
15.  On 14 July 2007 Ms Bachurina was arrested on suspicion of attempted large scale trafficking of drugs. Two days later the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised her detention.
16.  On 19 July 2007 Ms Bachurina appealed against the detention order.
17.  The detention order was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 27 August 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Krasnogorsk, Moscow Region.
5.  On 5 July 2007 the applicant, a police officer at the material time, was arrested on suspicion of abuse of official powers causing serious damage. On 10 July 2007 he was formally charged with the imputed crime. Subsequently he was additionally charged with embezzlement on a large scale as part of an organised criminal group.
6.  On 6 July 2007 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody on the ground of the gravity of charges. The court also reasoned that he might put pressure on witnesses, destroy evidence or interfere with investigation.
7.  On 3 September 2007, 11 December 2007, 10 April 2008 and 1 July 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention stating that the investigation was still pending, the case comprised 118 volumes and concerned fifteen suspects, the applicant had been suspected of a serious crime, could interact with his accomplices, abscond, destroy evidence and threaten witnesses. The court also took into account the applicant’s state of health, character and family status however it did not provide any detailed arguments in this respect.
8.  On 30 December 2008 and 20 April 2009 the District Court issued collective detention orders in respect of the applicant and other co-accused pending their study of the case-file. The court referred to the gravity of the charges, the defendants’ possibility to abscond, commit crimes and interfere with the investigation.
9.  The applicant’s appeals against the detention orders were rejected.
10.  On 9 June 2010 the Moscow City Court acquitted the applicant of all charges.
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Beograd.
6.  On 19 September 1996 certain A.N. (hereinafter “the debtor”) was sentenced for fraud in criminal proceedings and ordered to pay 18, 425 Serbian dinars (RSD) to PP Reprek, a company based in Serbia and owned by the applicant.
7.  On 17 December 1998 the said company filed with the District Court in Belgrade a request for enforcement based on the judgment in said criminal proceedings. Following an order to specify a motion for enforcement, the decision on enforcement was adopted on 29 April 1999.
8.  On 15 October 1999 the enforcement court ordered the Ministry of Interior to provide the exact address of the debtor.
9.  On 7 February 2000 the bailiff noted that the debtor had moved away to an unknown address.
10.  On 27 October 2000 the case was adjourned.
11.  On 7 May 2005 the applicant requested the continuation of the enforcement proceedings on behalf of his company.
12.  On 4 October 2005 the enforcement court again ordered the Ministry of Interior to provide the exact address of the debtor.
13.  By letter of 21 October 2005, the Ministry informed the enforcement court of the debtor’s address.
14.  On 18 November 2005 the bailiff went to the address provided by the said Ministry and established that the debtor was no longer living there and that he had moved away to an unknown address.
15.   On 20 January 2006 the enforcement Court requested the Ministry of Interior to provide the exact address of the debtor and his latest known place of residence.
16.  On 24 October 2006 the enforcement court informed the applicant that the Ministry did not establish the exact address of the debtor nor did it initiate misdemeanour proceedings against the debtor in accordance with Article 25 of the Domicile and Temporary Residence Act (see paragraph 22).
17. On 31 May 2007 the insolvency proceedings against the applicant’s company “Reprek” were completed. The said company ceased to exist and all its assets were transferred to the applicant.
18.  The enforcement court adjourned the case on 31 March 2010.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lived, prior to arrest and conviction, in Cheboksary.
5.  On 27 January 2004 the applicant was arrested. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.
6.  On 7 October 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.
7.  On 13 December 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic upheld his conviction on appeal. The court reduced the applicant’s sentence to five years and ten months.
8.  On 22 June 2007 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic quashed the judgments of 7 October and 13 December 2005 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The applicant was remanded in custody.
9.  On 11 July 2007 the Leninskiy District Court ordered the applicant to stay in prison pending trial.
10.  On 22 November 2007 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention, having noted that:
“... Taking into account the seriousness of the charges against [the applicant], his health condition, personal profile, a possibility that he might abscond, the court considers that the previous measure of restraint should remain unchanged ...”
11.  On 5 February 2008 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic upheld this decision on appeal.
12.  By decision of 24 December 2007, as upheld on appeal, the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for three months. Having heard the parties, the court ruled that:
“... As it can be seen from the case file, [the applicant] has been accused of a serious crime, which is punishable with an imprisonment exceeding two years. The grounds, which were used to put him in custody ..., have not ceased to apply. Being at large, [the applicant] may abscond and continue his criminal activity...”
13.  On 27 March 2008 the Leninskiy District Court convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to five years and ten months’ imprisonment.
14.  On 1 July 2008 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic upheld his conviction appeal.
4.  The applicants were born in 1947 and 1950, respectively. The first applicant, Mr Kryukov, lives in Kolpashevo, the Tomsk Region. The second applicant, Mr Lantsev, died on 28 October 2007. On 10 March 2008 his widow, Ms Raisa Pavlovna Lantseva, stated her wish to pursue the complaint of her late husband before the Court.
5.  On 30 June 1997 the applicants were dismissed from work on the grounds of redundancy.
6.  On 17 July 1997 the applicants sued their former employer for reinstatement, salary arrears and compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
7.  On 10 September 1997 the Kolpashevo Town Court of the Tomsk Region dismissed the applicants’ claims in full.
8.  On 17 October 1997 the aforesaid judgment was quashed further to the applicants’ appeal by the Tomsk Regional Court and the case was remitted for fresh examination.
9.  On 16, 20 and 22 January 1998 the applicants amended their claims.
10.  On 18 March 1998 the hearing was adjourned until 20 April 1998 at the defendant’s request in view of its representative’s health condition.
11.  On 23 April 1998 the Town Court allowed the applicants’ claims in part.
12.  On 8 September 1998 the Regional Court upheld the judgment in part but remitted the claim for salary arrears for a fresh examination.
13.  On 25 November and 8 December 1998 the hearings were adjourned at the applicants’ request.
14.  On 15 December 1998 the applicants further amended their claims and asked for a forensic accountant to be appointed. The proceedings were adjourned until 11 February 1999 to allow the accountant to prepare his report.
15.  On 11 February 1999 the applicants lodged a new claim.
16.  By the judgment of 11 February 1999 the Town Court partly allowed the applicants’ claims.
17.  On 23 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.
18.  On 26 August and 30 November 1999 the hearings were adjourned.
19.  On 13 January 2000 the applicants amended their claims.
20.  On 14 January 2000 the applicants’ claims were satisfied in part by the Town Court.
21.  On 15 February 2000 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court.
22.  On 13 March 2002 the Presidium of the Tomsk Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed judgments of 14 January and 15 February 2000 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
23.  The hearings of 10 April, 20 August and 10 October 2002 were adjourned.
24.  On 23 May 2002 the hearing was adjourned until 30 July 2002 for collecting additional evidence, on 1 November 2002 - for obtaining a graphologist’s report, and on 26 May 2003 – for taking further evidence from the defendant.
25.  On 31 July and 31 October 2002 and 27 May 2003 the applicants lodged new claims.
26.  On 4 June 2003 the proceedings were stayed as the defendant company was in the process of reorganisation which lasted until 19 July 2004.
27.  By judgment of 1 October 2004, the Town Court granted the applicants’ claims in part.
28.  On 14 December 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Tambov.
6.  On 23 October 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov (“the District Court”) ordered the Tambov town administration to pay the applicant approximately 776,150 Russian roubles (RUB) in social benefits and inflation losses, and recalculated regular payments received by the applicant due to his participation in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. The judgment entered into force on 3 November 2006.
7.  On 7 November 2006 the District Court clarified the judgment of 23 October 2006.
8.  On 29 November 2007 the judgment of 23 October 2006 was executed, i.e. in approximately one year and one month after it became final.
9.  On 1 August 2008 the District Court awarded the applicant RUB 87,060.05 of interest and RUB 5,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage in respect of the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 23 October 2006. The decision came into force on 10 September 2008 and was fully enforced on 24 November 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lived, prior to his arrest in St Petersburg.
5.  On 20 December 2005 the applicant was put on the wanted list on suspicion of a murder and gangsterism.
6.  On 17 July 2007 the Vyborskiy District Court of St Petersburg remanded the applicant in custody in absentia.
7.  On 20 October 2007 the applicant was arrested in Hungary.
8.  On 13 September 2008 he was extradited to Russia and placed in detention.
9.  On 28 April 2009 the St Petersburg City Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention referring to the seriousness of the charges and the applicant’s attempt to abscond. The applicant remained in detention pending investigation and trial. The court concisely reiterated in its detention orders the above reasons and stated that the applicant might interfere with investigation, commit crimes, threaten witnesses and that he could not be released on bail.
10.  The applicant’s appeals against the detention orders were rejected on the following dates:
 
Date of the detention order
Date of the introduction of the appeal
Date of the appeal hearing
28 April 2009
4 May 2009
2 July 2009
4 May 2009
8 May 2009
2 July 2009
19 August 2009
31 August 2009
22 October 2009
14 October 2009
16 October 2009
21 December 2009
14 January 2010
18 January 2010
16 February 2010
15 February 2010
18 February 2010
26 April 2010
11.  On 29 April 2010 the Saint-Petersburg City Court convicted him of murder and gangsterism and sentenced him to 16 years’ imprisonment. On 7 October 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld this decision on appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and until his conviction lived in Ivdel, a town in the Sverdlovsk Region.
6.  In April 2000 the applicant was arrested on charges of murder and arson.
7.  On 24 July 2000, as the investigation unfolded, the local official newspaper the North Star printed an interview with a deputy town prosecutor about a spike in murder rates. The prosecutor said:
“In the first half of 2000 our town reported fourteen murders – a historic high, it seems. Twelve of them have already been solved, thanks to the industry of the police department and the investigators from the prosecutor’s office....
The fingerprint identification of ex-convict [N.B.] (whose body was found in [a river]) has allowed to discover his enemies and to prove that he was beaten by three inhabitants of Ivdel seeking [...] to settle scores for his murder of [another man] for which [he] had served almost nine years. It has been established that [N.B.’s] two murderers – [the applicant’s codefendant] and S. Turyev, both ex-convicts – were complicit in the early‑March murder of [L.R.] who had dared to report them to the police for past wrongs. [Her] body was dumped in a wood near the airport and was found only in May. As those crimes were not solved in time, [the applicant’s codefendant] rampaged on and on 20 April killed [another woman] who had witnessed the night-time arson at Vizhayskaya Street that had killed five.
By the way, both [L.R.] and [the other woman] (whose body was found in a well next to the sports centre) had been garrotted with a wire. All three persons arrested in this multicount case will undergo forensic psychiatric observation because of the gravity of the crimes committed, which carry up to twenty years or life in prison. But even after these downright senseless murders, the crime wave in the town continued.”
8.  When the case came to trial before the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, the applicant moved to disqualify the prosecutor for the prejudice apparent in that interview. On 4 October 2002 the court refused the motion because the prosecutor had only cited facts from the investigative file, had affirmed the applicant’s complicity but not his guilt, and was not personally interested in the outcome of the trial.
9.  On 22 January 2003 the court sentenced the applicant to twenty years’ imprisonment for arson and the murders of N.B. and L.R. On 23 October 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the sentence, leaving unanswered the applicant’s complaint about the press interview.
10.  In reply to a post-conviction complaint brought by the applicant, in December 2004 the Sverdovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office found that the interview had breached the agency’s ethics policy as it had preceded the trial without, however, tangibly redressing the applicant.
4.  The applicants were prosecuted in Russia for various crimes. They were arrested and detained pending investigation and trial. Their detention was ordered and extended by the courts. The detention orders were essentially based on the gravity of the charges, the primary grounds being the risk of the applicants’ absconding and interfering with the course of justice. The detention and extension orders used stereotyped formulae, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures.
5.  The first applicant was born in 1973 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region. In 2007 the applicant was arrested in Ukraine. On 24 May 2008 he was extradited to Russia and was placed in pre-trial detention until 27 December 2010 when he was released on bail. On 22 April 2011 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg convicted him of fraud.
6.  The second applicant was born in 1978 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Angarsk, Irkutsk Region. On 23 September 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 25 September 2007 the court remanded him in custody. On 24 June 2010 the Irkutsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of fraud.
7.  The third applicant was born in 1967 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Yekaterinburg. The applicant was arrested on 16 August 2012. On 17 August 2012 the court held to place him in pre-trial detention. On 10 October 2013 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of trespass, battery, robbery and sexual assault.