coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Tambov.
5.  On 8 August 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 1st Court Circuit of the Leninskiy District of the Tambov Region ordered Municipal unitary enterprise of housing maintenance No. 1 («УМПЖХ №1», hereinafter “debtor company”) to pay 348 euros (EUR) to Ms Lisova Aleksandra Semenovna. The judgment became final on 19 August 2003.
6.  On 11 September 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.
7.  Following Ms Lisova’s death, on 08 July 2005 the Justice of the Peace of the 1st Court Circuit of the Leninskiy District of the Tambov Region replaced the initial applicant, Mrs Lisova, by her successor, Mrs Karpesh, in the enforcement proceedings.
8.  The award was subsequently index-linked in the course of the enforcement proceedings by the decisions of 02 March 2006 (final on 14 March 2006), 09 April 2007 (final on 20 April 2007), 09 January 2008 (final on 22 January 2008), and 27 March 2008 (final on 08 April 2008). Each decision replaced and cancelled the previous one.
9.  The award has not been paid to the applicant to date.
10.  The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise set up by a decision of the local administration and provided housing maintenance services. 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 their statutory activities.
11.  On 30 May 2008 the debtor company was declared insolvent and liquidation proceedings started. As a result, the company was liquidated on 27 May 2009.
5.  On 26 June 2006 the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered AD Perper-Agrar, a socially-owned company based in Bošnjace (hereinafter “the debtor”) to pay the applicant specified amounts on account of damages. That judgment became final on 14 July 2006.
6.  On 31 October 2006, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs.
7.  On 27 May 2011 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor.
8.   The applicant duly submitted his claim.
9.  On 3 February 2012 the applicant’s claim was formally recognised.
10.  The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing.
11.  On 22 April 2003, the debtor had been privatised and changed its name to AD Perper-Agrar.
12.  On 5 May 2005 the privatisation contract had been annulled and on 8 September 2006 the debtor’s name was changed to Agrar Fruit.
13.  According to the Serbian Ministry of Economy, the debtor is still a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital (see http://www.priv.rs/Ministarstvo-privrede/90/AGRAR-FRUIT--u-stecaju.shtml/companyid=1238, accessed on 6 December 2016).
14.  In their additional observations of 19 April 2016 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had transferred its judgment claims to a third person on 28 October 2015.
15.  On 9 November 2016, as a response to the Government’s additional observations, the applicant submitted that the contract regarding the transfer of the claims in question had been terminated by 11 December 2015.
5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kaluđerica.
6.  On 22 December 2006 the applicant was deprived of liberty on suspicion of participating in criminal association within the police operation “Customs mafia” during which 43 persons were also arrested. The applicant was released on 15 June 2007.
7.  On 31 July 2009 the investigation against all the accused was transferred to the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime.
8.  On 28 June 2012 the investigation was closed.
9.  On 17 January 2013 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were suspended.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kragujevac.
6.  On 13 July 2006 the applicant filed a civil suit together with 18 other persons with the Kragujevac Municipal Court against his former employer Telekom Srbija AD Beograd requesting the payment of funds from profit made in 2005.
7.  The applicant’s previous representative did not attend first preliminary hearing fixed for 15 November 2006, since he had been deleted from the register of the attorneys–at-law in May 2006. The applicant appointed the present representative on 25 January 2007.
8.  The preliminary hearing was held on 13 February 2007.
9.  On 27 August 2007 the proceedings were split to separate proceedings for each of the plaintiffs concerned.
10.  The preliminary hearing was held on 21 March 2008.
11.  Within the period from 21 October 2008 until 29 April 2011 seven out of eight hearings were postponed for various reasons, mainly because the representatives on the both sides provided new submissions and evidence and on the proposal of both sides due to the cost-efficiency of the proceedings.
12.  On 29 April 2011 the Kragujevac First Instance Court ruled against the applicant.
13.  On 20 February 2012 the Kragujevac Appeals Court upheld that judgment.
14.  On 27 June 2013 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Waldegg, Austria.
6.  On 28 September 1994 the applicant initiated civil proceedings requesting the division of a certain estate.
7.  On 5 January 2009 the Ivanjica Municipal Court suspended the said proceedings until conclusion of another civil case.
8.  It would appear that the said civil proceedings are still pending.
9.  On 23 June 2011 the Constitutional Court found a breach of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and ordered the speeding up of the impugned proceedings. The court, additionally, declared that the applicant was entitled to the non-pecuniary damages sought, in accordance with Article 90 of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 13, Article 90, below).
10.   It seems that, the applicant contacted the Commission for Compensation on 11 December 2011 and requested the payment of the compensation awarded, but apparently received no response.
4.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1940 and 1961 respectively. The first two applicants live in Dolni Dabnik and the third applicant lives in Sofia. The first two applicants are the third applicant’s parents.
5.  In 1990 the three applicants bought from the State a flat in Sofia measuring 144 square metres, which had become property of the State by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime after 1945.
6.  In 1992 the heir of the pre-nationalisation owner of the flat brought an action against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law, seeking to establish that their title was null and void. She also brought a rei vindicatio claim against them.
7.  The proceedings ended with a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation on 22 June 2004. The domestic courts dealing with the proceedings allowed both actions against the applicants. In relation to the action under section 7 of the Restitution Law, the courts found the applicants’ title null and void, since they had bought their flat in breach of the law: the area where the flat was located had been earmarked for the construction of buildings of more than three storeys, and the applicants’ building was of two storeys; and the legislation at the time prohibited the sale of flats in such buildings.
8.  It appears that on an unspecified date after that the applicants applied for compensation bonds; however, the parties have not informed the Court of the outcome of the procedure.
9.  In 2005 the applicants brought a tort action against the Sofia municipality (which was the legal successor of the State with regard to residential property). On 20 January 2010 the Sofia City Court allowed their claim. That judgment was quashed on 4 November 2010 by the Sofia Court of Appeal, which dismissed the claim in its entirety. In a final judgment of 4 April 2012 the Supreme Court of Cassation, finding that the applicants were only entitled to receive the price they had paid for the flat in 1990, which had devalued enormously over the years, awarded them the equivalent of about 12 euros (EUR).
5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Belgrade.
6.  On 27 June 2001 the Obrenovac Municipal Court ordered a socially-owned company, Holding - Prva Iskra AD Barič (hereinafter “the debtor”), to pay the applicant specified amounts on account of compensation for expropriated real estate plus the costs of the civil proceedings.
7.  On 18 March 2003, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Obrenovac Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs.
8.  On 23 April 2003 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the applicant’s debtor. As a consequence, the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor would appear to have been stayed.
9.  On 29 February 2016 the Belgrade Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. The applicant duly reported her claims based on the above-mentioned judgment to the insolvency administration.
10.  The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing and the said court judgment remains unenforced to the present day.
11.  According to publically available information the debtor is still, predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital (see http://pretraga2.apr.‌gov.rs/ObjedinjenePretrage/Search/Search, accessed on 7 February 2017).
12.  On 7 October 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court. In terms of redress, relying on the Constitutional Court Act 2007, the applicant sought, inter alia, compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the impugned non-enforcement.
13.  On 15 May 2012 the applicant noted the adoption of the amendments to the Constitutional Court Act, and specified her compensation claims accordingly. Specifically, on account of the pecuniary damage, the applicant requested the respective amounts awarded to her by the final judgment in question, whilst as regards the non‑pecuniary damage sustained she claimed 1,000,000 Serbian dinars (approximately 9,500 euros (EUR)).
14.  On 21 May 2014 the Constitutional Court found, in the operative part of its ruling (u izreci), that the applicant had indeed suffered a violation of her right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as well as a violation of her property rights and awarded her EUR 1,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage in question. However, it rejected the compensation claim regarding the pecuniary damages sought by the applicant. The Constitutional Court, lastly, ordered the speeding up of the impugned enforcement proceedings.
15.  In its reasoning, the Constitutional Court stated in respect of the compensation issue that the applicant’s pecuniary damage claim had been lodged out of time. In so doing, it merely referred to Article 85 § 3 of the Constitutional Court Act, as amended in 2011, requiring that such claims be brought simultaneously with the lodging of a constitutional appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Birkerod, Denmark.
6.  On 11 April 1995 the applicant formed a limited company, N.R. Group Ltd. (“the company”) together with a Turkish partner, N.K., to provide tourist services in Alanya, Turkey.
7.  On 19 March 1997 the applicant applied to the Alanya Civil Court of First Instance to cancel N.K.’s management authority. On 2 October 1997 the court ordered the cancellation and on 18 May 1998 it appointed a trustee for the company. Meanwhile, it was discovered that the applicant’s partner N.K. had fraudulently transferred the company’s assets to a new company.
8.  On 8 July 1997, the applicant brought two civil cases against N.K. before the Alanya Civil Court of First Instance and sought compensation for his loss incurred due to the fraudulent acts of N.K. The court decided to join the compensation cases and to examine them together.
9.  On 7 June 2005 the Alanya Civil Court of First Instance accepted the applicant’s compensation claim and granted him the equivalent of 203,000 deutschmarks (DEM) (103,792 euros (EUR) at the time) with statutory interest for his loss, to be paid in Euros, and DEM 10,000 (EUR 7,158 at the time) in compensation without interest of 40% (inkar tazminatı), to be paid in Turkish Lira (TRY). The court further ruled that the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings were to be borne by N.K.
10.  On an unspecified day the applicant requested that the judgment be served on him in order to commence enforcement proceedings. The court rejected the request, stating that it was not possible to provide the judgment unless the charge required by section 28(1) (a) of Law no. 492 (Code of Charges) had been paid.
11.  The applicant was therefore unable to lodge enforcement proceedings in order to have the above-mentioned judgment executed.
4.  The applicant, who was born in 1989, was detained at the Tekirdağ prison when the application was lodged.
5.  On 9 July 2010 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation.
6.  On 13 July 2010 the investigating judge at the Istanbul Assize Court, after questioning the applicant, ordered his pre-trial detention having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the strong suspicion of the suspect’s having committed the offence in issue.
7.  On 7 September 2010 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the applicant with membership of an illegal terrorist organisation.
8.  The trial commenced before the 9th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court and the first hearing was held on 15 February 2011.
9.  In the hearings held on 21 February 2012 and 3 May 2012, respectively, the applicant appeared before the court, and the judges ordered his continued detention. The applicant filed objections against these decisions. On 7 March 2012 and 8 June 2012 respectively, the 10th Chamber of Istanbul Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objections without holding an oral hearing and based on the public prosecutor’s opinion which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative.
10.  During the eleventh hearing held on 30 July 2013, the 9th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant’s continued detention on remand.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Sofia.
5.  The applicant’s husband owned part of a house and a yard in Sofia.
6.  By a decision of the mayor of 15 October 1981 the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a metro station. The decision, based on section 98(1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973, provided that the applicant’s husband was to be compensated with a three‑room flat in a building which the municipality planned to construct.
7.  In 1989 the applicant and her husband were moved out of the expropriated property and settled in a two-room municipally-owned flat. The expropriated house was subsequently pulled down.
8.  By a supplementary decision of 1 September 1989, based on section 100 of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act, the mayor determined the exact location, size and other details in respect of the future flat offered in compensation, which was to measure 94 square metres.
9.  In 1993 the applicants’ husband passed away, after which the applicant became the owner of the future flat allocated in compensation to him.
10.  In the years that followed the applicant requested on many occasions that the authorities complete the compensation procedure and deliver the flat due to her, but to no avail. The construction of the building in which the flat was to be located did not commence.
11.  In 2001 the applicant brought a tort action, claiming wrongful failure on the part of the Sofia municipality to build and provide her with the flat due to her during the period from January 1993 to September 2001. In a final judgment of 6 March 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation, holding that the municipality was responsible for the failure to deliver the flat within a reasonable time-limit, awarded the applicant 10,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in non-pecuniary damage and BGN 44,320 for loss of profit.
12.  In 2009 the applicant brought a new tort action against the Sofia municipality covering the period after October 2001. The action was dismissed in a final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 March 2013, on the ground that the applicant had had a special remedy at her disposal, namely the possibility provided for in section 9(1) of the transitional provisions of the Territory Planning Act 2001 to claim monetary compensation for the expropriated property instead of compensation with a flat (see paragraph 16 below).
13.  In 2013 the Sofia municipality informed the applicant that the construction of the building where the flat due to her was to be located was to start in the near future. According to the latest information submitted by the parties in 2014, the municipality was looking for a company to carry out the construction works.
4.  The applicants’ years of birth and places of residence are listed in the Appendix.
5.  The circumstances of the case are similar to those in Gahramanli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36503/11, §§ 6-32, 8 October 2015).
6.  The applicants were independent or opposition candidates in the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010 (see Appendix). All the applicants lost the elections in their respective constituencies.
7.  After election day, the applicants lodged complaints with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) concerning a number of irregularities in their respective constituencies that had allegedly taken place during and/or before election day. Some of them also lodged identical complaints with the respective Constituency Electoral Commissions (“the ConEC”). They complained about various types of irregularities, including, inter alia, interference by public officials, illegal campaigning, obstruction and intimidation of election observers, ballot-box stuffing, repeated voting by the same individuals, irregularities in applying election ink, incorrect vote‑counting procedures, inconsistencies in precinct election results records indicating a falsely inflated voter turnout, and so on. In support of their allegations, the applicants submitted various types of evidence documenting specific instances of the irregularities complained of, including statements made by election observers, video recordings and photographs.
8.  The applicants who lodged a complaint with the relevant ConEC did not receive any reply from those bodies (except in applications nos. 37554/11 and 39042/11). All of the applicants’ complaints were examined by the CEC, which, on various dates (see Appendix), issued decisions rejecting the applicants’ claims, providing reasoning similar to that in the CEC decision in Gahramanli and Others (cited above, §§ 21-26).
9.  The applicants lodged further complaints with the Baku Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which, on various dates (see Appendix), dismissed the applicants’ appeals providing reasoning similar to that in their respective decisions in Gahramanli and Others (cited above, §§ 27-32).
10.  In the meantime, before the Supreme Court delivered its final decision on each complaint, on 29 November 2010 the Constitutional Court had confirmed the countrywide election results, including the election results in the applicants’ constituencies, as final (ibid., § 30).
7.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1966, 1976 and 1972 respectively. Mr Rezmiveş, Mr Moşmonea and Mr Gazsi are currently detained in Timişoara, Pelendava and Baia Mare Prisons respectively. Mr Mavroian, who had been detained in Focşani Prison, was released on 13 January 2015.
8.  On 5 April 2011 the first applicant was admitted to Gherla Prison. He remained there until 12 March 2012, when he was transferred to Aiud Prison. On 13 April 2012 he was transferred to Oradea Prison, where he stayed until 20 December 2012, before being moved to Timişoara Prison on 5 August 2013.
9.  The first applicant complained about the conditions of detention in Gherla, Aiud and Oradea Prisons. In particular, he complained of overcrowding (submitting that there was between 1.60 sq. m and 2.22 sq. m of living space per prisoner), the lack of natural light, the short duration of daily exercise and the lack of recreational activities. ...
10.  On 13 February 2008 the second applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in Craiova Prison. Following his conviction, he served his sentence there until 17 May 2012, when he was transferred to Târgu-Jiu Prison. On 11 July 2012 he was transferred to Pelendava Prison. 16.  On 15 December 2009 the third applicant was admitted to Rahova Prison, where he stayed for several months before being transferred successively to Tulcea (2010), Iași (2010-14) and Vaslui (2011-13) Prisons. 17.  The third applicant complained about the conditions of detention in Rahova Prison, referring in particular to overcrowding, lack of ventilation in cells, mould on the walls, poor-quality food and the presence of bedbugs. ... 23.  The fourth applicant was held in the Baia Mare police detention facility from 26 March to 25 May 2012 before being transferred to Gherla Prison. 24.  In his application form the fourth applicant complained of poor hygiene conditions, the lack of a toilet, running water, natural light and adequate ventilation, the presence of rats and the insufficient access to showers at the Baia Mare police detention facility. In relation to his detention in Gherla Prison, he complained of overcrowding, lack of ventilation in cells, insufficient and poor-quality food served in rusty containers, and the presence of only one bathroom between twenty-seven detainees, which had two toilets and no hot water and could not be cleaned more than once a month.
...
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Donji Milanovac.
6.  He was employed by Ðerdap, a company in Kladovo (Ribarsko gazdinstvo “Ðerdap” – hereinafter “the debtor company”).
7.  On 28 December 1998 the applicant was reassigned to a lower post by his employer. He was subsequently dismissed on 20 January 2000. These two decisions, taken by the company’s managing director, were upheld by its board of management.
8.  On 18 February 1999 the applicant filed a civil claim against the debtor company; on 26 April 2000 he filed a separate claim seeking reinstatement to a suitable position, as well as the outstanding salary payments and social benefits.
9.  On 19 June 2003 the Majdanpek Municipal Court (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”) ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor company to reinstate the applicant to a post which corresponded to his professional qualifications and to pay him specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final on 23 October 2003.
10.  On 16 February 2004, 9 March 2004, 18 and 19 October 2004, respectively upon the applicant’s requests to that effect, the Municipal Court accepted the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs.
11.  The Municipal Court provided the National Bank of Serbia (Narodna banka Srbije – “the Central Bank”) with the above-mentioned enforcement orders on 14 April 2004, 20 July 2004 and 11 November 2004, respectively.
12.  It would appear that none of the above-mentioned enforcement orders have been enforced to date.
13.  On 8 April 2010 the Central Bank informed the Zaječar Commercial Court of the suspension of the debtor company’s accounts for three years.
14.  On 13 April 2010 the Commercial Court opened preliminary insolvency proceedings against the debtor company.
15.  On 30 June 2010 the Commercial Court opened and closed the insolvency proceedings against the debtor company and that decision became final on 10 August 2010.
16.  The debtor company was ultimately struck from the relevant public register on 31 August 2010.
17.  The debtor company in the present case had been a socially owned company. In 1991 it was transformed into a limited company which remained mainly socially owned, and remained as such until it was struck off the register (see http://apr.gov.rs/, accessed on 1 December 2016).