coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Kizel, Perm Region. Their names and dates of birth are tabulated below.
5.  The applicants sued the municipal unitary enterprise “Gorvodokanal” (МУП «Горводоканал») (hereafter “the company”) for salary arrears.
6.  The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise set up by a decision of the local administration and provided water supply in the town of Kizel. The company had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it by the administration in order to carry out its statutory activities.
7.  On 7 September 2006 the company was declared insolvent and its liquidation started.
8.  In 2007 and 2009 domestic courts by separate judgments made pecuniary awards in the applicants’ favour, to be paid by the company. Particulars of each judgment are summarised in the appended table.
9.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the awards became enforceable.
10.  The applicants alleged that the judgments had remained unenforced. According to the Government, all the judgments, except the one delivered on 16 October 2009 in Mr Martov’s favour, had been fully enforced in December 2007-April 2010. The judgment of 16 October 2009 had not been enforced since Mr Martov had failed to submit the execution writ to the liquidator. The Government corroborated their statements by a certificate issued by the company’s liquidator on 6 February 2012. According to that document, the judgment of 1 August 2007 in Mr Martov’s favour had been enforced in full, whereas the execution writ issued in 2009 had never reached the liquidator. The document says nothing about other applicants.
 11.  The applicants submitted to the Court a copy of a letter they had received from the Prosecutor’s office of Kizel, dated 3 June 2011. According to the letter, in November 2009 Mr Martov submitted to the liquidator the execution writ in respect of the judgment of 16 October 2009.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Irkutsk.
5.  On 14 May 2008 the applicant was arrested. On an unspecified date he was charged with three counts of pimping and pandering, extortion and illegal keeping of firearms. The court remanded him in custody.
6.  On 5 March 2009 he was committed for trial before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Irkutsk.
7.  On 3 August 2009 the District Court extended his pre-trial detention on the ground that the circumstances of the case had not changed since the applicant’s arrest, he was accused of a serious crime, did not live at his domicile, hence he could abscond, threaten witnesses and interfere with the investigation.
8.  On 26 November 2009 and 2 March 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention referring to the above grounds and stating that the victims of his crimes were minors. The court also took into account the applicant’s character, his state of health and age.
9.  The applicant’s appeals against the detention orders were rejected.
10.  On 29 March 2010 the District Court convicted him as charged.
5.  The applicant was born in 1927.
6.  He owned a house with a yard in Plovdiv, which were expropriated in 1982 on the basis of section 98 (1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство) with a view to constructing a residential building. The expropriation decision stated that the applicant was to be compensated with a two-room flat and a garage in a building which the municipality intended to construct.
7.  On an unspecified date the flat due in compensation was constructed and delivered. However, the applicant never received the garage which had also been due to him.
8.  In April 2008 the applicant complained to the Plovdiv municipality of the failure to provide him with a garage. By a letter of 11 June 2008 the deputy mayor of Plovdiv informed him that the municipality had no garages available and that it was currently constructing a building with underground garages, one of which could be offered to him.
9.  In February 2010 the applicant wrote once again to the municipality, and was informed in reply that the construction of the building mentioned earlier had not been completed.
10.  In 2014 the municipality offered the applicants’ heirs a garage, which the latter refused as it was situated at more than ten kilometers from their place of residence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Pernik.
5.  Her mother owned a house with a yard in the city, which were expropriated in 1978 on the basis of section 98 (1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство – “the TUPA”) with a view to constructing a highway. It was stated in the expropriation decision that the applicant’s mother was to be compensated with a three-room flat, and the applicant was to receive a two‑room flat.
6.  The flat that the applicant’s mother was due was constructed and provided to her in 1985. Until then the family lived in a municipally-owned dwelling.
7.  The expropriated house was pulled down in 1986.
8.  In a decision of 14 July 2000, issued on the basis of section 100 of the TUPA, the Pernik mayor indicated the exact flat to be provided to the applicant. It measured 75 square metres and was situated in a building under construction. It was stated in the decision that the flat’s value was 22,424.84 Bulgarian levs (BGN), although it was not specified whether this amount took into account the value of the expropriated properties. Later on in 2000 the applicant paid to the municipality BGN 28,000 for the flat’s value; it is unclear how this amount was arrived at.
9.  The building where the flat was situated was completed in 2003, but the flat that the applicant was due was never handed over to her. The applicant was told that it had been transferred by the municipality to third parties.
10.  In the following years the applicant and her mother filed complaints with the regional governor, the Prime Minister and the Parliament.
11.  The authorities have not yet fulfilled their obligation to provide the applicant with a flat. The applicant states that she does not have another dwelling and that together with her husband and children she has been living with her parents in their flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Sofia.
5.  The applicant’s husband owned a house with a yard and a garage in Sofia.
6.  On 14 June 1985, by decision of the Sofia mayor, the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a school. The decision, based on section 98 (1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство – “the TUPA”), stated that the applicant’s husband was to be compensated with a four-room flat and a garage in a building which the municipality intended to construct.
7.  By a supplementary decision of 12 September 1986, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor determined the exact location, size and other details in respect of the future flat to be provided in compensation. No mention was made however of the garage. Even though, after judicial review initiated by the applicant’s husband, in a final judgment of 18 March 1987 the Sofia City Court ordered the mayor to supplement the decision and specify the exact garage to be provided to the applicant’s husband, this was not done.
8.  In 2004 the municipal authorities transferred to the applicant’s husband property to a flat different from the one described in the decision of 12 September 1986, which however he did not contest.
9.  The applicant’s husband passed away in 2005. By virtue of his will, all his property was left to the applicant.
10.  In a letter signed by the chief architect of Sofia and dated 8 July 2009 the applicant was informed that the decision of 12 September 1986 had not yet been supplemented to specify the garage to be provided to her because no buildings with garages earmarked for the purpose were being built.
11.  In August 2009 the applicant challenged before the courts the mayor’s failure to issue a decision specifying the garage to be provided to her. In a final judgment of 23 June 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed her claim, noting that the case at hand did not concern what was defined by statute as “unlawful failure to act”, but instead the enforcement of the judgment of 18 March 1987 (see paragraph 7 above), which had to be pursued under a different procedure.
12.  In parallel proceedings brought on an unspecified date in 2009, the applicant sought damages from the Sofia municipality for wrongful failure to provide her with a garage. In a final decision of 23 September 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court declared the claim inadmissible, on the ground that the courts had already established in the judgment of 23 June 2010 that there had not been any unlawful failure to act on the part of the administrative authorities.
4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1955 respectively and live in Sofia.
5.  The first applicant’s parents owned part of a house in Sofia.
6.  In 1986 the house was expropriated with a view to constructing a street and a residential building. The expropriation decision, based on section 98 (1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство – “the TUPA”), provided in particular that in compensation the applicants were to receive a three-room flat.
7.  By another decision of 28 May 1993, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor indicated the exact future flat to be provided as compensation to the applicants. It measured 87 square metres and was situated in a building to be constructed by the Sofia municipality. Its value was set at 21,185 old Bulgarian levs (BGL), later amended to BGL 21,231. The applicants paid to the municipality the part of this amount which was not covered by the value of the expropriated property.
8.  In 1990 the applicants, their children and the first applicant’s parents were accommodated in a three‑room municipal flat. They remained in it until 2004, when they chose to move to another dwelling better adapted for the first applicant’s mother’s frail state of health.
9.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicants brought a tort action against the Sofia municipality, claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on account of its continued failure to build and provide them with a flat.
10.  The action was dismissed on 21 February 2006 by the Sofia District Court, which found that the applicants had not proven that they had sustained damage, in particular because they had been accommodated in a municipally-owned dwelling, and that in any event domestic law provided for a special remedy for persons in the applicants’ situation, namely the possibility to request a new valuation of the expropriated property.
11.  Following that judgment, the applicants made a request for a new valuation. In a letter by the municipality dated 2 June 2006 and signed by a deputy mayor, they were informed that they were not entitled to seek such a valuation since they had not been the owners of the expropriated property.
12.  In the meantime the flat due to the applicants was built and they took possession of it on 19 June 2006.
13.  In the tort proceedings, in judgments of 14 December 2006 and 8 July 2008 the Sofia City Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the Sofia District Court’s judgment of 21 February 2006, reiterating its findings.
14.  In these proceedings the applicants were ordered to pay 1,200 new Bulgarian levs (BGN, the equivalent to 612 euros – EUR) in court fees.
5.  The applicant was born in 1966. At the time she submitted her complaint she lived in Madona Region, Latvia.
6.  On 17 November 2006 the Madona District Court, acting as a first‑instance court, found the applicant guilty of a traffic offence which had caused moderate bodily injury to a victim. The court ordered the applicant to perform 100 hours of community service and suspended her driving licence for a year.
7.  In establishing the applicant’s guilt, the first-instance court relied on incriminating statements by the victim and two witnesses. It also relied on other evidence, including a medical expert opinion on the bodily injuries sustained by the victim.
8.  The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Vidzeme Regional Court. She alleged, inter alia, that the first instance court had failed to order an inspection and a technical examination of her vehicle, and had also not carried out a confrontation of witnesses.
9.  On 13 February 2007 the Vidzeme Regional Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court but changed in part the punishment by revoking the suspension of the applicant’s driving licence.
10.  On 8 March 2007 the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law to the Senate of the Supreme Court. She alleged that the appellate court had failed to carry out and to order a number of investigating activities. Specifically, according to the applicant, the appellate court has not carried out a confrontation between the witnesses and the victim. It has not ordered an investigative experiment, an inspection and a technical examination of her vehicle.
11.  The applicant maintained that the evidence in the case was not sufficient to establish her guilt, and thus the appeal court had acted contrary to numerous sections of the Criminal Procedure Law.
12.  In a letter dated 11 April 2007 a judge of the Senate of the Supreme Court informed the applicant that on 11 April 2007 her appeal on points of law was not admitted for examination in the cassation proceedings. It relied on section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law and stated that “[the appeal on points of law] was not substantiated by any fundamental infringement of the Criminal Law or the Law on Criminal Procedure”. It was also stated that it was not within the competence of the cassation court to re-examine or obtain evidence, or to explain the factual circumstances of the case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Arzamas.
5.  In the early hours of 5 June 2005, at about 3 a.m., the police arrested the applicant. In the morning he was interviewed and later taken to the hospital because he broke the window and injured himself. At 6 p.m. the arrest record was drawn up; it gave 6 p.m. as the time of the applicant’s arrest.
6.  On 7 June 2005 the Lukoyanovskiy District Court in the Nizhny Novgorod Region remanded the applicant in custody for an initial two‑month period.
7.  On 8 August 2005 the District Court held a hearing to decide, among other matters, on an extension of the applicant’s detention. The applicant asked for release; counsel for the applicant pointed out that, since the authorised detention period had ended on 5 August 2005, his detention in the following three days had been unlawful. The District Court extended the applicant’s detention, finding that the “preventive measure [should] remain unchanged”.
8.  In the statement of appeal against the District Court’s extension order, the applicant complained that the custodial measure which had already expired could not “remain unchanged”. The appeal was forwarded to the Regional Court only on 8 September 2005.
9.  On 23 September 2005 the Regional Court rejected the appeal in a summary fashion, without addressing the applicant’s arguments.
10.  On 25 January 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 25 April 2006, without informing the applicant or his representative about the hearing or giving any reasons for its decision. The applicant filed an appeal on 30 January 2006 which was dismissed by the Regional Court on 31 May 2006.
11.  By judgment of 25 August 2006, as upheld on appeal on 17 October 2006, the applicant was found guilty and given a custodial sentence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 9 March 2006 the applicant submitted a request for an increase of her disability pension before the Budapest Governmental Authority (Directorate of Pension Insurance), which dismissed her claim on 21 August 2006. The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision on 10 October 2006. The Central-Hungarian Regional Insurance Directorate acting as a second-instance authority upheld the first-instance decision on 4 January 2007.
6.  The applicant sought the judicial review of the second-instance decision within the statutory time-limit. She submitted her statement of claim on 9 February 2007 to the first-instance administrative authority, in line with the applicable procedural laws.
7.  In the absence of any developments in the case, the applicant notified the first-instance administrative authority about upholding her claim on 18 March 2010. The first-instance administrative authority subsequently forwarded the applicant’s statement of claim to the Budapest Labour Court on 20 July 2010.
8.  The Budapest Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on 14 June 2011.
5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Lviv.
6.  On 29 January 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.
7.  On 1 February 2007 the Lviv Shevchenkivskyy District Court (the Shevchenkivskyy Court) ordered his detention as a preventive measure pending trial, for an initial period of two months.
8.  On 28 March 2007 the same court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two more months on the ground that there was a considerable volume of investigative measures to be carried out and there were no reasons for changing the preventive measure.
9.  On 29 May 2007 the investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyer received access to the case file.
10.  On 6 July 2007 another set of criminal proceedings was instituted against the applicant, for infliction of grievous bodily harm.
11.  On 10 July 2007 the two criminal cases were joined.
12.  On the same day the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to six months.
13.  On 27 July 2007 the case was referred to the Shevchenkivskyy Court, which held a preliminary hearing on 31 August 2007. It ordered the applicant’s further detention without fixing any time-limits.
14.  The Shevchenkivskyy Court remitted the case for further investigation three times (on 8 October 2007, as well as on 19 May and 18 November 2008). The appellate court quashed the first two decisions (on 18 December 2007 and 26 August 2008), but upheld the last one (on 27 March 2009). All the judicial rulings in question maintained the applicant’s continued detention without further reasoning.
15.  On 14 May 2009 the investigation was completed and the case was referred for trial, this time to the Court of Appeal as a first-instance court.
16.  On 27 May 2009 the Court of Appeal held a preliminary hearing, at which it decided, among other things, to remit the case for further investigation once again and to maintain the applicant’s detention.
17.  On 4 August 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the above decision in so far as it concerned the remittal issue and rejected the applicant’s request for release on the ground that he was accused of serious crimes.
18.  On 15 June 2010 the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of murder and attempted murder and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment.
19.  On 22 February 2011 the Supreme Court upheld that judgment.
20.  On 29 January 2016 the applicant was released following the legislative amendments pertaining to the enforcement of sentences.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Călărași.
6.  On 26 October 2005 the applicant and her daughter drank water from taps in their apartment and shortly thereafter they felt unwell. On 29 October 2005 the applicant’s daughter, who was twelve at the time, was admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of “serious acute dysentery”. The applicant was admitted to hospital with the same diagnosis on 31 October 2005. She was released from hospital on 13 November 2005, a day later than her daughter.
7.  The applicant lodged a court action against the local utilities provider (“the provider”), a State-owned company, claiming 100,000 Moldovan lei (“MDL”, approximately 6,700 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for the harm caused to her health and for the related inconveniences, including subsequent investigations and disinfection.
8.  On 1 March 2006 the Călăraşi District Court found in her favour. It found that various sanitary, medical and technical reports had established that in the vicinity of the applicant’s apartment block the sewage pipe was situated above the drinking water pipe and was leaking. The water pipe had cracked on 26 October 2005 and sewage water had infiltrated the drinking water pipe. The court also established that the pipes had been used since 1977 and that their expected lifespan was fifteen years. A total of five people, all of whom had drunk water from taps connected to the same water pipe, had been admitted to hospital with the same diagnosis at approximately the same time as the applicant. Taking into consideration such elements as the amount of physical and mental suffering caused to the applicant and her daughter, the court awarded her MDL 10,000 (approximately EUR 648 at the time).
9.  The parties appealed. On 26 April 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and partly accepted the provider’s appeal. It reduced the award to MDL 5,000 (EUR 310) because it found exaggerated “both the sum claimed by [the applicant] and that awarded to [her]”.
10.  The parties appealed. On 25 October 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the judgment of 26 April 2006. It found that the lower court had taken into consideration the nature and seriousness of the mental suffering caused to the applicant, as well as the degree of guilt of the defendant. That judgment was final.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Hamburg.
6.  On 26 August 2004 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu; hereinafter: the “State Attorney’s Office”) indicted the applicant and another person in the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu) on charges of aggravated fraud under Article 224 §§ 1 and 4 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 14 below).
7.  The applicant was tried in summary proceedings (skraćeni postupak). On 11 February 2009 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court found the applicant and the other accused guilty as charged and sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for four years. She was also ordered, jointly with the other accused, to pay damages to the victims in the total amount of 230,335.22 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 31,100 euros (EUR)).
8.  The applicant appealed against her conviction and sentence, challenging all legal and factual aspects of the case and asking that her conviction be quashed and a retrial ordered. She submitted, in particular, that she had not had fraudulent intentions, but had merely acted as an intermediary between the loan provider and the borrowers in order to earn commission for herself. Moreover, she stressed that the trial judge had erred in the factual findings and had failed to obtain certain evidence requested by her, which meant that some crucial facts had been left undetermined. She also asked that she and her defence lawyer be allowed to appear at the session of the appeal panel.
9.  On 20 January 2011 the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru), without informing the applicant or her lawyer, examined the case without holding a hearing. After examining all of the factual and legal issues of the case it dismissed the appeal and upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence.
10.  On 5 April 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining of a lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against her. She contended in particular that she had not been allowed to appear at the session of the appeal panel.
11.  On 29 September 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.