coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Rudinská.
7.  On 17 December 2008 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Žilina District Court (file no. 8 C 240/2008) seeking an order for the defendant (a municipality) to enter into a contract with her concerning the transfer of a flat, in which she resided.
8.  The District Court scheduled two hearings for 8 June and 8 July 2009; it ruled on the merits of the action and granted the action on the latter date.
The applicant lodged an appeal; the judgment was quashed by a court of appeal on 8 April 2010 and the matter was remitted on 4 June 2010 to the District Court.
9.  The applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court contesting the length of the proceedings in so far as those had been held before the District Court.
10.  On 11 October 2012 the Constitutional Court (file no. II. ÚS 423/2012) rejected her complaint on the ground that, prior to lodging her constitutional complaint, the applicant had failed to exhaust ordinary remedies, in particular lodging a complaint with the President of the District Court under the Courts Act (Law no. 757/2004).
The Constitutional Court noted that the court of appeal had transferred the case file to the District Court on 4 June 2010 and that the applicant had lodged her constitutional complaint on 27 September 2012. It found that, within that period, the District Court had failed actively to proceed with the matter for one year and a half.
The Constitutional Court observed that the Court’s previous case-law – such as Ištván and Ištvánová v. Slovakia (no. 30189/07, 12 June 2012), which concerned a delay of more than six years – dealt with unjustified delays imputable to the courts that were substantially longer than those in the present case (one year and a half). The Constitutional Court considered that, because the unjustified delays in the present case had been shorter (compared to those in respect of Ištván and Ištvánová and other similar cases), it was justified in requiring – before turning for protection to the Constitutional Court – that the applicant lodge a complaint with the President of the District Court with a view to accelerating her proceedings.
11.  Following the Constitutional Court’s decision, the District Court scheduled a hearing for 9 September 2015. At the time of communication of the application the proceedings were still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Olekminsk, Sakha (Yakutia) Republic.
5.  On 23 December 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.
6.  On 25 December 2008 the Olekminskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic remanded the applicant in custody.
7.  On 21 February, 19 March, 18 May, 18 June, 15 August, and 12 September 2009 the court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention and held that despite the fact that he had permanent residence, job and family, he should remain in detention as the investigation was still pending, he could threaten witnesses or re-offend.
8.  On 18 June 2009 the judge stated in his detention order as follows:
“... the circumstances of the case have not changed. [The applicant] ... committed the crime under the influence of alcohol ..., he concealed that he had committed the crime ...”
9.  On 27 November 2009 the court replaced the pre-trial detention with a house arrest.
10.  On 10 June 2010 the Olekminskiy District Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment. On 10 August 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld his conviction on appeal.
4.  The applicants were prosecuted in Russia for crimes. They were arrested and detained while the crimes were investigated and pending 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 stereotypical formulae, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures.
5.  The first applicant was born on 20 August 1983 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region. The applicant was arrested on 30 March 2005 on suspicion of fraud and placed in detention. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.
6.  On 19 April and 14 July 2006 his pre-trial detention was extended. His appeals against these detention orders were considered on 23 July and 3 November 2006 respectively. The applicant and his lawyer did not attend the hearing on 19 April 2006.
7.  On 23 October 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.
8.  The second applicant was born on 2 November 1972 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Vorkuta, Komi Republic. The applicant was arrested on 14 January 2008. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.
9.  On 5 June and 2 September 2009 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended. His appeals against these detention orders were examined on 24 July and 30 October 2009. The applicant and his lawyer were not present at the hearings on 24 July, 2 September and 30 October 2009.
10.  On 6 November 2009 the Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic convicted him of drug dealing and sentenced him to fourteen years and nine months’ imprisonment and a fine.
11.  Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single judgment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Roslavl, the Smolensk Region.
6.  On 15 June 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of unintentional manslaughter. On 30 September 2003 he was committed to stand trial before the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk. On 10 October 2003 the District Court fixed the first trial hearing and ordered that the applicant should remain in custody.
7.  On 26 April 2004 the Leninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final on 10 July 2004 when the Smolensk Regional Court upheld it on appeal.
8.  In February 2005 the applicant lodged an action with the Leninskiy District Court, arguing that his detention from 2 to 26 April 2004 had been unlawful as there had been no legal order authorizing his detention during that period. He sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
9.  On 23 September 2005 the Leninskiy District Court, in the presence of a defendant’s representative, dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that the applicant’s conviction precluded him from claiming compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damages. Its operative part reads as follows:
“Given that Mr Artemenko was found guilty of the crime in relation to which he had been detained since 17 June 2003, he did not acquire the right to exoneration and to compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Therefore, there exist no grounds for satisfying Mr Artemenko’s claim for compensation in respect of his unlawful detention pending trial.”
10.  The applicant appealed, complaining, inter alia, that the District Court had refused to secure his attendance and had not provided him with copies of materials presented by the defendants. He also maintained his initial claim for compensation.
11.  On 29 November 2005 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 23 September 2005 in the applicant’s absence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Sofia.
5.  The applicant’s father owned a house with a yard and a garage in Sofia.
6.  Pursuant to a decision of the mayor issued on 27 July 1978, the property was expropriated for the purposes of constructing a residential building. The order, based on section 98 (1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство – “the TUPA”), provided that the applicant’s father was to be compensated with a two-room flat and a garage in a building which the municipality planned to construct.
7.  In a supplementary decision of 19 February 1979, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor specified the exact location, size and other details in respect of the flat to be provided by way of compensation. As no mention was made of a garage, the applicant’s father applied for judicial review of that decision. In a final judgment of 21 June 1979 the Sofia City Court found in his favour and referred the case back to the administrative authorities with instructions to specify the exact garage to be provided as compensation.
8.  In 1982 the flat in question was constructed and handed over to the applicant’s father.
9.  After 1992 the applicant’s father filed numerous requests with the municipal authorities asking them to specify the exact garage to be given to him. By a letter of 12 January 2008 the chief architect of Sofia informed him that no buildings with garages earmarked for the purpose of compensation were being constructed at the moment.
10.  In 2008 the applicant’s father brought an action for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (Закон за отговорността на държавата и общините за вреди) for unlawful failure on the part of the Sofia municipality to fulfill its obligations to build and provide him with a garage. The action was dismissed in a final judgment of 21 June 2011 of the Supreme Administrative Court, on the grounds that no unlawful failure to act on the part of the authorities had been established.
11.  In the meantime, on 7 April 2008 the applicant’s father passed away. The applicant is his only heir.
4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Iğdır.
5.  On 14 January 2005, while the applicant was serving as a conscript in the army, he fell from the roof where he was on guard. Subsequently, he was treated in various civilian and military hospitals. According to a medical report dated 4 May 2005, the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a left parietal craniotomy and was declared unfit for military service.
6.  On 8 July 2005 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Defence for compensation for his injury.
7.  Following a tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities, the applicant initiated compensation proceedings in respect of the injuries he had sustained during his military service before the Supreme Military Administrative Court on 1 November 2005. He sought 20,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 12,400 euros (EUR)[1]) in respect of pecuniary damage and the same sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
8.  An expert report dated 4 October 2007 assessed the applicant’s pecuniary damage at TRY 58,384 (approximately EUR 36,260).
9.  On 19 October 2007 the applicant asked the court to increase his initial claim via an amendment (ıslah), stating that he had only become aware of the true extent of his pecuniary damage when he had received the expert’s report.
10.  On 28 November 2007 the Supreme Military Administrative Court ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him the full amount of his initial claim in respect of pecuniary damage, namely TRY 20,000. It awarded him a further TRY 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for an amendment, considering itself bound by the initial claim. The court stated in particular:
 “The purpose of an amendment is to rectify a procedural act. Having regard to the judgment of the Constitutional Court published in the Official Journal of 4 November 2000, we must conclude that, in civil law, injured persons are entitled to seek additional compensation once an expert report has been issued. However, in the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, the time-limits of one year [from the date when a claimant becomes aware of the impugned act] and sixty days from the date of referral of the administrative authorities apply. Under section 46(4) of the Supreme Military Administrative Court Act, the amount claimed cannot be rectified once those deadlines have passed. Consequently, the applicant’s amendment claim must be rejected for being out of time ...”
11.  By a judgment of 16 April 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s application for rectification of its previous decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Tirana.
5.  On 18 June 2009 the applicant, who worked as General Deputy Director of State Social Service (Zëvendës Drejtor i Përgjithshëm i Shërbimit Social Shtetëror) at the Ministry of Work, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (Ministria e Punës, Çështjeve Sociale dhe Shanseve të Barabarta) (“the Ministry”) was dismissed.
6.  On 27 January 2010 the Tirana District Court accepted in part the applicant’s action against his dismissal. It ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and the payment of damages corresponding to five months’ salaries. By final judgment of 23 November 2010 the Tirana Court of Appeal upheld the Tirana District Court’s judgment.
7.  On 6 May 2011 an enforcement writ was issued.
8.  From 2011 to 2014 the bailiff office unsuccessfully attempted the enforcement of the final judgment.
9.  On 9 December 2014 the authorities finally paid the damages to the applicant.
10.  On 8 April 2016 the State Social Service requested the Ministry to examine the applicant’s reinstatement. On the same day the State Social Service addressed a letter to the Department of the Public Administration, stating that the position of the Deputy Director was available.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963. In 2002 he was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. At the relevant time the applicant was serving his sentence in a prison.
6.  On 1 February 2005, following a request submitted by the applicant’s wife in accordance with Article 107 of the Family Code, the local civil status registry dissolved their marriage. The applicant was sent a notification about the divorce.
7.  Later in February 2005 the applicant and his new female partner, K., were prevented from marrying as the applicant had not obtained a divorce certificate, as required by Article 116 of the Family Code. That document could be obtained exclusively by the applicant at the relevant civil status registry.
8.  The applicant requested that he be escorted to the registry in order to obtain the divorce certificate. His request was refused as the domestic law did not provide for the escorting of prisoners on such grounds.
9.  On 16 June 2005 the prosecutor informed the applicant that under Article 116 of the Family Code he had the right to remarry after he had obtained a divorce certificate. However, this would be possible only after his release from prison.
10.  On 17 August 2005 the Deputy Minister of Justice considered a complaint lodged by the applicant concerning the authorities’ failure to provide him with a divorce certificate for the purpose of remarriage. He stated that under domestic law it was not possible to carry out the relevant actions in prison; nor was it possible to issue a power of attorney for another person to act on behalf of the applicant in relation to that matter. The Deputy Minster informed the applicant that amendments to the domestic legislation had been prepared.
11.  On 23 January 2006 and 20 July 2007 the Ombudsman’s Office informed the applicant that they were aware of that issue and that amendments to the domestic legislation had been prepared by the Ministry of Justice.
12.  On 30 July 2007 the State Prison Department informed the applicant that he would be able to obtain a divorce certificate after his release from prison. The amendments to the domestic legislation had yet to be considered.
13.  On 16 October 2008 the Ministry of Justice issued Order no. 1761/5 providing for a temporary procedure for registering divorces and issuing divorce certificates in prisons.
14.  In December 2008 the applicant was personally informed of the procedure introduced by the Ministry of Justice.
15.  On 6 February 2009, at the applicant’s request, he was provided with a divorce certificate in prison.
16.  On 13 July 2009 the applicant and K. applied for the registration of their marriage. On 14 August 2009 the local civil status registry registered their marriage.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Moscow.
5.  On 13 October 2006 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court in Moscow remanded the applicant in custody on the charge of fraud. Subsequently the District Court extended the applicant’s detention on 8 December 2006 and on 2 February, 10 April, 29 May and 18 September 2007. Each time the District Court attached preponderant weight to the gravity of the charges against the applicant. On 21 May and 4 July 2007 the Moscow City Court rejected the appeals against the detention orders of 10 April and 29 May 2007, respectively.
6.  The City Court authorised further extensions of the applicant’s detention on 28 September and 26 December 2007. The Supreme Court rejected his appeals on 31 October 2007 and 15 February 2008, respectively.
7.  On 14 February 2008 the case was submitted for trial. On 20 February, 30 June and 17 December 2008 and 18 March and 18 June 2009 the District Courts in Moscow prolonged the applicant’s detention pending trial, referring mainly to the gravity of the charges. The most recent extension order was issued for the period until 19 September 2009.
8.  Between 27 January 2007 and 16 May 2008 the applicant was detained in the IZ-77/1 remand prison in Moscow. The prison was filled beyond the design capacity and cells were severely overcrowded. He was later transferred to another remand prison in Moscow.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and, prior to his arrest, lived in Oblivskaya, Rostov Region.
5.  On 22 October 2007 the applicant, a police officer at the time, was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing.
6.  On 24 October 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don authorised the applicant’s remand in custody. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial. Referring to the seriousness of the charges and the applicant being a police officer, the courts extended his pre-trial detention on the grounds that he might abscond, or interfere with the administration of justice, or put pressure on witnesses and other defendants.
7.  The applicant lodged appeals against the detention orders. On 4 January and 22 February 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decisions of 29 December 2007 and 6 February 2008 in the applicant’s absence. The applicant and his lawyer were informed about the hearings but the applicant was not granted leave to attend. The applicant’s lawyer attended the hearing on 22 February 2008. The prosecutor was present and made submissions to the court.
8.  On 17 December 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty of several counts of illegal drug dealing and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
9.  On 10 June 2009 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 17 December 2008 on appeal and remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. The court ordered that the applicant remain in custody.
10.  On 15 July 2009 the District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing of the case and ordered that the applicant remain in detention. On 18 November 2009, 29 January and 29 April 2010 the District Court adjourned the hearing of the case. It further extended the applicant’s detention on the ground that he was charged with grievous criminal offences and might abscond.
11.  On 6 May 2011 the applicant was found guilty.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Chișinău.
5.  On 2 October 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal delivered a judgment acknowledging the applicant’s entitlement to a disability pension. Owing to the lack of an appeal, the judgment became final on 22 October 2008.
6.  On 1 December 2008 the Ministry of Defence lodged an appeal on points of law.
7.  On 4 February 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the appeal on points of law, quashed the judgment of 2 October 2008 and remitted the case for a fresh examination on the merits. After several rounds of proceedings, on 2 March 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice finally acknowledged the applicant’s entitlement to a disability pension.
8.  Meanwhile, after communication, the Prosecutor General, following a request from the Government Agent, lodged an application for revision with the Supreme Court of Justice, seeking the reopening of the proceedings and redress for the violation of the applicant’s rights. In those proceedings, the applicant claimed 29,069.17 Moldovan lei (MDL) in respect of pecuniary damage, MDL 25,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, MDL 29,784.60 for legal costs and MDL 4,000 for miscellaneous expenses. On 23 June 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice found a violation of the applicant’s rights as a result of the quashing of the final judgment in his favour. It set aside the judgment of 4 February 2009 and the subsequent judgments adopted in the reopened proceedings and decided to restore the final judgment of 2 October 2008 in the applicant’s favour. The court then awarded the applicant MDL 15,000 (equivalent to 890 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, MDL 15,000 for legal costs and MDL 1,000 for miscellaneous expenses. The court dismissed the applicant’s claims in respect of pecuniary damage, arguing that they could not be examined by direct application of Article 41 of the Convention.
5.  On 9 June 2004, the applicant, 69 at the time, was walking in the centre of Kharkiv and was hit in the face by a pellet fired from an air gun.
6.  The applicant was admitted to hospital the same day and the pellet was removed from her face. It was subsequently seized as evidence by the police. The doctors noted in the applicant’s medical file that she had a gunshot wound on the infraorbital region of her face.
7.  Later that day she lodged a criminal complaint with the police. The applicant alleged that the shot had been fired from a particular flat in a building in the centre of Kharkiv.
8.  From 10 to 26 June 2004 the applicant underwent outpatient medical treatment for her injury.
9.  On 2 July 2004, at the request of the police, she was examined by an expert, who concluded that the applicant’s injury was of a minor degree and might have been caused by a gunshot. On 31 October 2005 the applicant underwent an additional medical examination, which confirmed the previous conclusion.
10.  By decisions of 22 March and 8 December 2005 and 9 August 2006, the police refused to open criminal proceedings, stating that it was not possible to identify the offenders and that the applicant’s allegations that the shot had been fired from a particular location were unfounded. They further found that there had been no serious breach of public order in the applicant’s case and noted that the applicant could have lodged a criminal complaint directly with a court in the framework of private prosecution proceedings. Despite her repeated requests, the applicant was not given access to the police investigation file related to the incident of 9 June 2004.
11.  On appeal by the applicant, those decisions were annulled by different prosecutors and the courts generally on the grounds that the police enquiry had fallen short of the requirements of a full and objective examination of the circumstances of the case. It was noted that the police had failed to examine the relevant evidence, including the pellet, and that the case contained elements of the crime defined by Article 296 of the Criminal Code (hooliganism). In particular, on 21 August 2007 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv ruled that the case should be returned to the prosecutors for further investigation.
12.  No further investigation was carried out after that date.
13.  By a letter of 21 August 2009, the Deputy Prosecutor of the Dzerzhynskyy District of Kharkiv informed the applicant that the investigation case file had gone missing. There is no information as to any further developments in that regard.
14.  On 7 November 2009 the applicant died. Her death was unrelated to the incident of 9 June 2004.