coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Torres Novas.
5.  On 16 February 2004 eviction proceedings were instituted against the applicant’s husband, A.S., before the Court of Torres Novas (domestic proceedings no. 154/04.7TBTNV).
6.  On 31 March 2004 A.S. lodged his submissions in reply (contestação) and on 6 May 2004 the claimant lodged new submissions (réplica).
7.  On 22 September 2006 A.S. died.
8.  On 7 November 2006 the court suspended the proceedings and on 9 November 2007 it declared the proceedings’ interruption as the claimant had not taken the initiative of continuing the proceedings against the defendant’s heirs.
9.  On 18 December 2007 the claimant applied for leave to continue the proceedings against the defendant’s heirs (incidente de habilitação de herdeiros).
10.  After having faced some difficulties in summoning the heirs, the court managed to summon all of them and on 13 June 2009 the defendant’s heirs, including the applicant, were admitted as parties to the proceedings.
11.  On 26 June 2009 the court was informed of the claimant’s death.
12.  On an unknown date one of the claimant’s heirs, A.O., applied for leave to continue the proceedings with her and the other claimant’s heir as parties.
13.  On 22 June 2012 the court admitted the claimant’s heirs as parties to the proceedings.
14.  On 22 January 2010 the court was informed of the death of one of the defendant’s heirs.
15.  On an unknown date A.O. applied for leave to continue the proceedings against the heirs of the deceased party. On 4 May 2010 she provided information on those heirs and in July she provided their birth certificates. On 12 July 2011 A.O. provided the heirs’ addresses, following which they were summoned.
16.  On 30 April 2012 those heirs were admitted as parties to the proceedings.
17.  On 14 December 2012 the court gave a preparatory decision setting out the facts that had already been established and those that remained outstanding (despacho saneador).
18.  On 14 January 2013 the claimant’s heirs requested an inspection to the house, which took place on 3 April 2013.
19.  On 29 May 2013 the hearing that had been scheduled for that day was postponed as the parties’ lawyers were not present.
20.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 18 September, 29 October and 17 December 2013.
21.  On 14 January 2014 the court adopted a decision with regard to the factual basis (resposta à matéria de facto) and on 13 March 2014 it delivered its decision in which it ordered the applicant to vacate the house and to pay rent arrears.
22.  On an unknown date the applicant appealed against that decision. The appeal was declared inadmissible for an unknown reason.
23.  As the applicant had not complied with the 13 March 2014 decision (see paragraph 21 above), on 19 January 2015 the claimant instituted enforcement proceedings against her before the Santarém Court.
24.  According to the latest information received by the Court on 23 November 2015, on that date the enforcement proceedings were still pending at first instance.
4.  On 18 January 2007 the Moscow City authorities, the Ministry of the Defence of the Russian Federation and a private construction company signed an investment contract for the construction of a number of residential buildings in Moscow. Pursuant to the contract, a title to 3,823 flats was to be transferred to the Ministry of the Defence. The rest of the flats were to remain the city’s property.
5.  In 2008 the city authorities commissioned, as part of the said investment contract, several residential buildings. It appears that a number of flats in those buildings were transferred to the Ministry of the Defence.
6.  In 2009 the city authorities had their title to a number of flats, including those in residential buildings nos. 8 and 26-1 at Ulitsa Marshala Savitskogo, Moscow, registered by the state authorities.
7.  In 2010 the Ministry of the Defence assigned five of those flats to private individuals and entered into social housing agreements with them. Subsequently those people successfully applied to the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow seeking recognition of their title to the flats by way of privatisation. Once the court’s judgments became final, they had their ownership in respect of the flats registered in the state register and then sold the flats to other persons, including the applicants. The relevant transactions and transfer of the title to the property were duly registered by the authorities. The applicants moved into the flats and resided there.
8.  According to the Government, in 2012 and 2013 the police opened criminal investigation in respect of the fraudulent transactions with the flats. The Government did not inform of its outcome.
9.  On an unspecified date city authorities asked the District Court to re‑open the cases concerning the flats privatised by the tenants who sold them to the applicants in 2011. The authorities claimed that the flats owned by the applicants were the city’s property. The District Court granted the request, quashed the earlier judgments allowing the privatisation of the flats and re-examined the cases. The court established, inter alia, that the Ministry of the Defence had never owned the flats and, accordingly, had not had a right to assign them to private individuals. It granted the city’s claims in full invalidating the decisions of the Ministry of the Defence in respect of the flats and ordering the applicants’ eviction. The court also found that the applicants had acquired the flats in good faith. However, it ruled that the cases fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow given that the flats had left the City’s possession against the latter’s will.
10.  The applicants’ appeals were to no avail. The Moscow City Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected them as unsubstantiated.
11.  According to the Government, the judgments ordering the applicants’ eviction were not enforced. The applicants continue to reside in the flats.
12.  The details pertaining to each case are summed up in Appendix II below.
4.  On 25 April 2008 the applicant arrived in Turkey legally on a visa valid for one month.
5.  On 24 April 2010 the applicant, who had been living in Turkey since April 2008, was taken into police custody while he was at Istanbul Atatürk Airport. He made a statement to the airport police on the same day. According to the document containing his statement, the applicant was informed that he was suspected of lacking a valid identity document and of illegal entry into Turkey. He was kept in detention at the airport police station for the following three days.
6.  On 27 April 2010 the applicant was sent to Istanbul Kumkapı Removal Centre. According to the applicant’s account, the centre was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention, which resulted in hygiene problems. The building was infested with insects and the quality and quantity of the food was also fairly poor. Moreover, there was no provision for outdoor exercise.
7.  On 2 June 2010 the applicant applied for release to the Istanbul Magistrates’ Court. The court decided on the same day that it did not have jurisdiction as the applicant had not been detained within the scope of a criminal investigation. The court therefore ruled that any request had to be brought before the administrative courts.
8.  On an unspecified date the applicant made an asylum claim to the Ministry of the Interior and lodged an application for refugee status with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
9.  On 25 June 2010 the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in the province of Bilecik as an asylum-seeker and was released from Kumkapı Removal Centre on the same day.
10.  According to information provided by his representative on 4 January 2017, a deportation order was issued in respect of the applicant on an unspecified date in 2016. He has been detained at İzmir Işıkkent Removal Centre since 20 September 2016 with a view to his expulsion. The domestic proceedings brought by the applicant against the deportation order and the applicant’s application to the UNHCR for refugee status are still ongoing.
6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır.
7.  On 17 January 2003 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
8.  On 18 January 2003 his statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant confessed to being a member of an illegal organisation. He gave a detailed account of its structure and his acts within the illegal organisation. On the same day the applicant was heard by a public prosecutor and an investigating judge respectively. In these statements to the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, he denied his police statements and argued that they had been taken under duress. Following his questioning, the investigating judge ordered that the applicant be held on remand.
9.  On 28 January 2003 a public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code.
10.  State Security Courts were later abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
11.  On 10 June 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court found that, inter alia, on the basis of the applicant’s statements to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant had committed the offence under Article 314 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to two years and one month’s imprisonment.
12.  On 27 May 2009 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the judgment, arguing that the applicant had been convicted on the basis of statements taken under duress.
13.  On 3 March 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
5.  The applicant, Mr Piotr Budnik, is a Polish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Leszno.
The circumstances of the case
6.  The facts of the case were not in dispute and may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicant was detained in Łowicz Prison from 27 January 2007 to 19 April 2009 (2 years, 2 months and 22 days).
8.  The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in Łowicz Prison he had been held in overcrowded cells in which the space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 sq. m.
9.  The domestic courts established, without giving any further details, that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells during various unspecified periods from 27 January 2007 to 19 April 2009. The overcrowding led to many quarrels between the prisoners as the tables did not have enough space for everybody.
10.  The applicant was placed in a solitary confinement cell for fourteen days as part of a disciplinary measure, where the toilet was not separated from the living space.
11.  In reply, The Government submitted that the applicant had been held in solitary confinement owing to a need to monitor his behaviour. The number of stools and beds in all cells matched the number of inmates. All the cells were equipped with ventilation and heating systems. The applicant was entitled to one hot shower per week and one hour of outdoor exercise per day.
12.  On 12 May 2009 the applicant, represented by a legal aid lawyer, brought a civil action over an infringement of his personal rights on account of the inadequate living conditions in Łowicz Prison from 27 January 2007 to 19 April 2009. The applicant argued that he had been detained in overcrowded cells with space that was below the statutory minimum. He claimed 100,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 25,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation.
13.  On 20 July 2012 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okregowy) granted the applicant PLN 3,000 (EUR 750) in compensation and dismissed the remainder of his claim. The domestic court found that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells from 27 January 2007 to 19 April 2009. Moreover, he had been detained in a solitary confinement cell as a disciplinary punishment for fourteen days.
14.  On 1 March 2013 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) amended the above judgment, increased the compensation to PLN 7,000 (approximately EUR 1,750) and dismissed the remainder of the action.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Torre del Greco.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, can be summarised as follows.
7.  In January 1990, a few years after she had applied to the Interior Ministry for a disability pension, Ms T.G., the applicant’s mother, was granted an entitlement to the monthly payment of the pension together with a special allowance on account of her partial blindness.
8.  On 21 October 1994 Ms T.G. filed an application with Torre Annunziata District Court (pretore), sitting as an employment tribunal, to obtain acknowledgment of a re-evaluation of her pension and interest on the arrears.
9.  On 27 March 1998, after the hearing had been adjourned three times, the District Court dismissed the application as out of time. On 24 September 1998 Ms T.G. died.
10.  On 10 March 1999, the applicant, lodged an appeal against that decision, on her own behalf and in her capacity as heir, in Naples District Court.
11.  On 10 December 2002 that court acknowledged the applicant’s right to the recalculated sum and interest for a total of EUR 12,240.26. The decision became final on 25 January 2004.
12.  As the decision was not enforced by the relevant authorities, on 14 June 2004 the applicant served a payment order (atto di precetto) on the National Social Security Agency (Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale – INPS) for EUR 30,364.38, representing the sum claimed, with interest and taking account of the re-evaluation.
13.  On 25 January 2005 she obtained a garnishee order (pignoramento presso terzi) from the Naples enforcement judge in respect of her whole claim.
14.  On 25 May 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal with the “Pinto” Division of the Rome Court of Appeal, complaining about the excessive length of the proceedings. With regard to the admissibility of her appeal, she argued that, under section 4 of Law no. 89/2001 (the “Pinto Act”), the “final domestic decision” to be taken into account was that of the enforcement judge of 25 January 2005. In consequence, she argued, the six-month deadline for lodging the claim for just satisfaction ought to run from that date.
15.  On 18 May 2006 the Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible as out of time, taking the view that the final domestic decision to be taken into consideration was that delivered by the Naples District Court in the proceedings on the merits, a decision which had become final on 25 January 2004.
16.  The Court of Cassation upheld that decision on 25 September 2008 and dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
4.  The applicants were born in 1975 and 1976 respectively and live in Grozny. They are husband and wife.
5.  M. was the owner of a three-roomed flat at at 35-122, Ulitsa Starosunzhenskaya, Grozny, Chechen Republic.
6.  On 26 March 1996 M.’s husband sold the flat to A. The transaction and A.’s title to the flat were duly registered by the state authorities.
7.  On an unspecified date M. and her family moved from Grozny to the Krasnodar Region abandoning the flat. On 21 April 1998 they applied for the compensation for the loss of the flat resulting from the military conflict in Chechnya. On 22 December 2000 M. received the compensation.
8.  On 14 November 2008 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings against M.’s husband on the charges of fraud in respect of the flat as time-barred.
9.  On 24 March 2010 A. sold the flat to the second applicant. The transaction and the second applicant’s title to the flat were duly registered by the state authorities. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there.
10.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department of Grozny lodged a civil action against A. and the first applicant seeking the invalidation of the purchase of the flat by A. and claiming the title to the flat.
11.  On 7 December 2010 the District Court applied the statute of limitations to the claims lodged by the Housing Department and rejected them.
12.  On 1 February 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the judgment of 7 December 2010 on appeal.
13.  On 18 June 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozniy granted the second applicant’s claim and removed the flat from the data base listing the flats in respect of which the former owners received compensation from the State.
14.  On 30 April 2013 the District Court re-opened the case in view of newly discovered circumstances concerning a third party’s right to the reside in the flat.
15.  On an unspecified date Mur. lodged a civil action seeking the applicants’ eviction. She claimed that in 1999 the municipal authorities had assigned the flat to her under the social housing agreement.
16.  On 28 June 2011 the District Court rejected Mur.’s claims. It also invalidated the assignment of the flat to Mur. under the social housing agreement.
17.  According to the Government, on 15 November the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the judgment of 28 June 2011 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
18.  On 26 May 2014 the District Court considered the claims lodged by the second applicant and Mur. The court dismissed Mur.’s claims in full. It found that Mur. had failed to present any original document confirming the assignment of the flat to her under the social housing agreement. The court also invalidated the flat purchase agreements between (1) M.’s husband and A. and (2) the second applicant and A., recognised that the flat was the property of the Town of Grozniy and ordered the applicants’ eviction.
19.  On 11 November 2014 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the judgment of 26 May 2014 on appeal.
20.  According to the Government, the applicants were not evicted and continue to reside in the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Ufa.
5.  On 26 December 2006 a new block of flats was commissioned by the Ufa Town Administration.
6.  On 30 September 2010 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Ufa recognised T.’s title to the flat at 66/2-54, Ulitsa Kommunarov, Ufa.
7.  On 28 October 2010 T. sold the flat to M. The transaction and M.’s title to the flat were registered by the state registration authorities.
8.  On 13 January 2011 M. sold the flat to the applicant. The transaction and the applicant’s title to the flat were registered by the state registration authorities.
9.  On an unspecified date the Housing Foundation of the Republic of Bashkortostan brought a civil claim seeking, inter alia, the invalidation of the applicant’s title to the flat and eviction.
10.  On 23 July 2013 the District Court granted the claims in full. The court established that the judgment of 30 September 2010 had been forged and that T. had died in 2008 and could not have been a party to the relevant proceedings. The court refused to recognise that the applicant had purchased the flat in good faith for her failure to check the authenticity of the judgment of 30 September 2010. It further took into account that M. had sold the flat to the applicant for 180,000 Russian roubles (RUB) while she had bought it for RUB 190,000.
11.  On 17 November 2013 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan upheld the judgment of 23 July 2013 on appeal.
12.  On 4 April 2014 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal.
13.  On 9 July 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicant’s second cassation appeal.
14.  According to the Government, the eviction order was not enforced and the applicant continues to reside in the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Beloljin, Republic of Serbia.
5.  In 1997 the Maribor unit of the Surveying and Mapping Authority (hereinafter the “Maribor unit”) issued several decisions concerning the delimitation of real estate belonging to the applicant and to company D., and ordering changes in respect of the use of land. The applicant appealed against some of those decisions.
6.  On 28 September 2000 the Ministry for the Environment and Spatial Planning (hereinafter the “Ministry”) granted the applicant’s appeal in part and annulled a decision issued on 12 February 1997 while it dismissed the appeal concerning two decisions issued on 31 January 1997.
7.  On 23 November 2000 the applicant challenged the aforementioned decision of the Ministry in the part dismissing his appeal by instituting proceedings before the Administrative Court.
8.  On 6 November 2003 the Administrative Court granted the applicant’s appeal, annulled the challenged part of the decision of 28 September 2000 (see paragraph 6 above) and referred the case back to the Ministry who, in turn, referred it to the Maribor unit. The applicant appealed.
9.  On 24 May 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Administrative Court’s judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2006. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.
10.  On 19 December 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint. The decision was served on the applicant on 10 January 2008.
11.  On 10 July 2015, referring to section 25 of the 2006 Act, which regulates the domestic settlement proceedings in cases where an application to an international court had been lodged before the 2006 Act entered into force (see paragraph 14 below), the State Attorney’s Office sent the applicant a settlement offer. In the offer they emphasised that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court could not have given rise to a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement. In respect of redress they offered to provide the applicant with a written statement in which they would acknowledge that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated in the proceedings before the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court. The offer was served on the applicant on 24 July 2015.
12.  The applicant did not accept the offer.