coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1976.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  In 1994, the applicant was convicted of theft and given a two-year custodial sentence conditional on one year’s probation. However, the court applied a general amnesty act and the applicant’s conviction, including the probation period, was spent with immediate effect.
7.  Less than one year later, on 29 May 1995, a different court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. Considering that the applicant had breached the terms of his probation by committing a new offence, the court ordered the suspended sentence to be activated and increased the total length of the sentence by one year.
8.  On 11 December 2001 the Presidium of the Omsk Regional Court acknowledged that the 1995 judgment had been unlawful in the part relating to the increase of the final sentence in connection with the prior conviction that had already been spent. The length of the sentence was varied to six years’ imprisonment, calculated from 2 January 1995 which was the date of the applicant’s arrest. Given that the applicant had already spent more than six years in detention, the Presidium ordered his immediate release.
9.  The applicant unsuccessfully tried several avenues for claiming compensation for his unlawful detention during eleven months and fourteen days.
10.  He sought first to exercise the “right to rehabilitation” under the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 13 below). On 5 August 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Omsk rejected his application, pointing out that the “right to rehabilitation” only accrued to those who have been acquitted or exonerated which was not the applicant’s case. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
11.  The applicant also tried to initiate criminal proceedings against Judge B. who had given the judgment of 29 May 1995. His criminal-law complaint was rejected on the ground that the limitation period had expired.
12.  Finally, the applicant filed a civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of the Civil Code (see paragraph 14 below). On 20 December 2005 the Tsentralniy District Court in Omsk rejected his claim, finding that paragraph 1 of Article 1070 did not apply because the applicant had been found guilty rather than acquitted and that the special condition of applicability of paragraph 2 – the criminal conviction of the judge – was not fulfilled. On 14 June 2006 the Omsk Regional Court rejected an appeal against that decision.
4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
5.  On 25 March 1996 the applicant brought a compensation claim for damages suffered as a consequence of an expropriation of his property against the Municipality of Bar and one of the local primary schools before the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Bar.
6.  On 11 April 1996 the applicant’s representative informed the Court of First Instance that he had initiated a separate set of proceedings to determine the value of the above-mentioned damages. The Court of First Instance suspended the above mentioned civil proceedings pending the final resolution of this matter.
7.  No document was submitted by the parties as to whether or not the compensation proceedings have ended in the meantime. Accordingly, it would appear that the said two sets of proceedings are still pending before the Court of First Instance.
8.  On 2 February 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Court of First Instance in Bar, against his neighbour, seeking a demarcation between their two plots of land.
9.  On 25 March 2004 the applicant amended his proposal to this effect.
10.  On 14 September 2004 the applicant and the respondent reached a friendly settlement which was approved by the Court of First Instance on the same day.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sinj.
6.  On 29 December 2005 M.R. brought a civil action against the applicant before the Sinj Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sinju), seeking that a will be declared null and void. M.R. was represented by lawyers, V.Lj. and Ž.V.
7.  On 8 December 2006 the Sinj Municipal Court adopted a judgment in the applicant’s favour.
8.  The plaintiff lodged an appeal with the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu). The Civil Division of that Court has over forty judges. On 27 August 2009 a panel of three judges presided over by Judge D.P., sitting in a closed meeting, reversed the first-instance judgment and upheld the appeal. It held that the first-instance court had correctly established the facts but had wrongly applied the relevant law.
9.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) alleging, inter alia, that she had not had a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal because Judge D.P. was the father of a trainee lawyer working at the law office of V.Lj. and Ž.V., who had both represented the plaintiff in the proceedings.
10.  On 14 September 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as unfounded and upheld the second-instance judgment. It held in particular:
“The case file shows that N.P., Judge D.P.’s son, did not participate in any manner in the proceedings at issue. This court therefore considers that there are no circumstances which put the impartiality of Judge D.P. in such doubt as to exclude his participation in the adoption of the appeal judgment.”
11.  In a constitutional complaint of 29 June 2012 the applicant argued that even though N.P. had not participated at the hearings held in the proceedings at issue, there were no indications that he had not been otherwise involved in the case. He had been in a relationship of subordination (employer-employee) to the opposing party’s legal representative and the law office concerned had employed only a very small number of people. The applicant noted that the first-instance judgment in her favour had also later been reversed on appeal. The constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 3 October 2012 by the Constitutional Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Martin.
6.  On 20 October 2011 the applicant lodged a claim with the Martin District Court (“the District Court”) (file no. 10 C 60/2012), seeking payment of his wages plus interest in connection with the termination of his employment.
7.  On 17 February 2012 the District Court issued a payment order in summary proceedings. As the defendant challenged the order, the matter fell to be determined by the court in ordinary proceedings.
8.  It took the District Court more than eight months to deal with an application by the applicant to change the particulars of claim.
9.  In October 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution, contesting the length of the proceedings before the District Court.
10.  On 28 April 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint (file no. III. ÚS 172/20150), on the grounds that, prior to lodging his 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 Coll.).
The Constitutional Court referred to the Court’s previous case-law in Ištván and Ištvánová v. Slovakia (no. 30189/07, 12 June 2012), and tried to distinguish that case from the applicant’s case. It observed that the case of Ištván and Ištvánová concerned proceedings lasting more than six years, which was substantially longer than the duration of the proceedings in the applicant’s case (three years). The Constitutional Court further stated that only in cases where the length of proceedings was prima facie excessive at the time of lodging a constitutional complaint was it not necessary to lodge a complaint with the president of a court, and therefore the applicant should have lodged a complaint with the President of the District Court.
11.  In the meantime, the District Court had appointed an expert in economics, accountancy and tax, and had ordered the applicant to pay fees in advance for the expert evidence. That order was challenged by the applicant before the Žilina Regional Court, but to no avail. The appointed expert then prepared her opinion between June and September 2015.
12.  Subsequently, the District Court scheduled a hearing for 16 March 2016. On that date the District Court delivered a judgment by which it granted the applicant’s claim in part and dismissed the remainder of the claim. A written judgment was delivered to the applicant two months later. However, in their submissions to the Court the parties failed to specify the exact date when the judgment was served on the applicant, and they did not provide appropriate evidence to confirm this. They also did not inform the Court about any possible further development in the proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Novosibirsk.
6.  On 10 April 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery as part of an organised group and of abuse of position.
7.  On 11 April 2007 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Novosibirsk remanded him in custody. He remained in detention pending the completion of the investigation and trial. Referring to the seriousness of the charges, the courts extended his detention on the grounds that he might threaten witnesses, abscond, interfere with the investigation, reoffend or destroy evidence.
8.  On 13 April 2009 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.
9.  On 18 January 2010 the Novosibirsk Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination. The court decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. His detention was subsequently extended on the same grounds as described above.
10.  On 14 April 2011 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 5 September 2011 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
11.  On 16 January 2015 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration. They acknowledged that the applicant had been detained “without well-founded justification on the basis of decisions rendered by the courts”, which did not “comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention”. They stated their readiness to pay 1,500 euros (EUR) to the applicant as compensation for his pre-trial detention from 18 January 2010 to 14 April 2011 and asked the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases.
12.  On 10 March 2015 the applicant rejected the Government’s offer. He expressed the view that the amount of money offered by the Government was insufficient.
5.  The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On various dates between 2004 and 2008 the applicants were criminally prosecuted for and convicted of various offences under the Russian legislation then in force. All of the applicants appealed, but their cases were examined by the appeal courts in the absence of their respective counsel. The appeal courts upheld their convictions.
7.  In the case of Mr Chernenko (application no. 51264/07) the first‑instance court ordered him to pay the legal fees incurred in respect of his representation in the criminal proceedings against him. On 6 November 2012 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the order of the first-instance court and waived the legal fees that Mr Chernenko had been ordered to reimburse.
8.  Following the communication of the applications, the prosecutor lodged requests for supervisory review of the criminal cases of Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy (applications nos. 12584/05 and 45690/05).
9.  Following the communication of the other four applications (nos. 45075/05, 11343/06, 51264/07 and 59378/08), the prosecutor lodged a request for supervisory review of the judgment of the appeal courts. The domestic courts examined his request and expressly acknowledged that these four applicants’ right to legal assistance in the appeal proceedings in respect of their cases had been breached. The applicants’ cases were remitted for re-examination by the same appeal courts. The Court requested additional observations from the Government in respect of these four cases regarding the conformity of the second set of appeal proceedings with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. When the applicants’ cases were heard and re-examined by the appeal courts, they were represented by lawyers, and they participated in the respective proceedings via video link.
10.  The details of the applicants’ cases are set out in the appendix.
4.  The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix.
5.  The applicants were opposition-oriented activists. At the material time the first applicant was a member of one of the opposition parties, the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan. He participated in a number of peaceful demonstrations organised by the opposition and on several occasions was arrested and convicted for that.
6.  On 12 October 2013 an opposition group İctimai Palata held a demonstration, authorised by the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”).
The demonstration was held in the Mahsul stadium, a place proposed by the BCEA. It was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants were protesting against alleged irregularities and fraud during the presidential elections of 9 October 2013.
7.  All three applicants participated in that demonstration.
8.  After the end of the demonstration of 12 October 2013 the applicants were arrested at the entrance to a nearby metro station, Inshaatchilar.
9.  The circumstances of the applicants’ arrests, their custody and subsequent administrative proceedings against them are similar to those in Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016) and Huseynov and Others v. Azerbaijan ([Committee] nos. 34262/14 and 5 others, 24 November 2016) (see also Appendix).
6.  The applicants are all Russian nationals living in different regions of Russia. Their personal details are set out in the appendix below.
7.  On various dates the applicants obtained binding judicial decisions ordering the State authorities to provide them with housing or perform other obligations in kind.
8.  According to the latest information available to the Court, judgments became final as specified in the table below and either were enforced with a delay or have remained unenforced. The relevant details in respect of the judgments are listed in the appendix.
9.  The applicants on several occasions applied to different Russian authorities seeking to accelerate the enforcement of the judicial awards in their favour.
10.  The applicant in case no. 73303/11 challenged lawfulness of his dismissal from military service alleging, in particular, that the judicial award in his favour of 28 May 2007 had not been complied with. By the final judgment of 12 May 2011 the Moscow Garrison Military Court rejected his action and established, inter alia, that the judgment of 28 May 2007 had been enforced in full on 25 March 2010.
6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lived in Novosibirsk before his arrest.
7.  On 12 November 2010 the Kalininskiy District Court of Novosibirsk convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and armed robbery and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The applicant was represented by a lawyer in these proceedings.
8.  On 24 January 2011 an appeal brought by the applicant himself was examined by the Novosibirsk Regional Court in the absence of counsel. The appeal court upheld the applicant’s conviction.
9.  The applicant has been serving his sentence in IK-8 in Novosibirsk since 10 February 2011.
10.  As regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the IK-8 facility, the Government submitted information which can be summarised as follows:
 
Period of detention
 
Unit no.
 
 
Dormitory surface area in square metres
 
 
Number of sleeping places
 
Number of inmates assigned to the dormitory
 
Number of washbasins and lavatories
 
10-15 February 2011
 
Quarantine section 50.2
24
6-24
2 and 2
 
15 February – 30 May 2011
 
17
219
109
100-108
8 and 10
 
30 May 2011 – February 2013
7
11.  The Government also submitted that all the units where the applicant had been detained had had a sufficient number of sleeping places for all the detainees, they had been ventilated through openings in the windows and had had access to cold water in accordance with up to date sanitary standards. The units were equipped with ten to fifteen kettles to boil water and tanks containing potable water. All the lavatories had individual cabins with doors that were one and a half metres high, opening to the outside. They submitted photographs of the washbasins and lavatories.
12.  The applicant acknowledged that he had an individual sleeping place. However, he underlined that the conditions he had to live in were cramped. He further submitted that the units had no access to natural light or had poor artificial lighting, that the ventilation did not work and that the air was damp. The food he was provided was not in accordance with the special diet prescribed for him. Furthermore, inmates with tuberculosis lived in the same dormitory. There were only three lavatories (in units 17 and 7), they had no doors and the applicant had no privacy when using them. They were clogged up most of the time owing to the number of people using them. Prisoners were only allowed one shower a week. The applicant had no access to potable water and only one washbasin out of four had worked. There were only two kettles for boiling water and the electricity was switched off during the day and therefore it was not possible to have boiled water. The applicant further submitted that the buildings where his units were located were in a hazardous condition and that the roof and walls were liable to fall in at any time owing to a lack of repairs. Lastly, the applicant adduced written statements from his four co-detainees who confirmed his account of the conditions of detention in IK-8 in Novosibirsk.
4.  The applicants were all employed at a State-owned limited liability company. Their employment was terminated as of 3 July 2012.
5.  The first applicant, I.B. was born in 1957 and lives in Budapest. A certain part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of 3,557,737 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 11,900 euros (EUR)).
6.  The second applicant, L.C. was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest. Part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of HUF 3,675,702 (approximately EUR 12,200). The second applicant withdrew his application on 25 February 2016.
7.  The third applicant, A.D. was born in 1968 and lives in Budapest. Part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of HUF 2,824,844 (approximately EUR 9,400).
8.  The fourth applicant, E.F. was born in 1959 and lives in Monor. Part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of HUF 2,650,902 (approximately EUR 8,800).
9.  The fifth applicant, E.J. was born in 1954 and lives in Solymár. Part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of HUF 5,696,384 (approximately EUR 19,000). Due to subsequent amendments of the relevant legislation, the tax rates applicable to the fifth applicant’s severance payment changed retroactively. Accordingly, the National Tax Authority found that part of the applicant’s severance payment had been subject to a flat-rate public charge of 20% in the amount of HUF 746,808 and another part of his severance payment had been subject to a flat-rate public charge of 75%, amounting to HUF 1,558,949. Therefore, the applicant was reimbursed HUF 3,390,627 by the National Tax Authority. The overall tax burden imposed on the applicant’s severance payment was 30.7 %.
10.  The sixth applicant, J.K. was born in 1956 and lives in Budapest. Part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of HUF 2,099,845 (approximately EUR 7,000).
11.  The seventh applicant, Z.J.K. was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest. Part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of HUF 3,119,393 (approximately EUR 10,400).
12.  The eighth applicant, G.N. was born in 1960 and lives in Budapest. Part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of HUF 2,886,807 (approximately EUR 9,600). The eighth applicant withdrew his application on 14 January 2015.
13.  The ninth applicant, I.S. was born in 1957 and lives in Szolnok. Part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of HUF 3,972,297 (approximately EUR 13,200).
14.  The tenth applicant, S.S was born in 1965 and lives in Monor. Part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of HUF 2,376,658 (approximately EUR 7,900).
15.  The eleventh applicant, F.V. was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest. Part of his severance payment was subject to the 98% special tax in the amount of HUF 3,345,040 (EUR 11,100).
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Surgut, Khanty‑Mansiyskiy Region, Russia.
5.  The applicant was the leader of a trade union in a private company. His co-workers expressed a wish to hold a public assembly on Constitution Day on 12 December 2009 and the applicant, in his capacity as trade union leader, decided to help them. According to him, such help was “an indirect expression of his own opinion”. The applicant distributed banners and explained that it would be more practicable to stage solo demonstrations. To avoid prosecution for holding a public assembly without notifying the authorities in advance, the applicant suggested that his co-workers position themselves at some distance from each other, for instance on different streets. At the time, there was no federal or regional statutory requirement concerning the minimum distance between simultaneous solo demonstrations (see “Relevant domestic law”).
6.  The applicant was then arrested and taken to the police station, where he was held for three hours.
7.  On 18 December 2009 a justice of the peace found him guilty under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) and fined him 1,500 Russian roubles (RUB) (35 euros at the time). The court considered that the applicant and his co-workers had met in one place; the applicant had given instructions to the others and had distributed banners; he had taken them to the place of the demonstration. In the court’s view, the above circumstances disclosed the presence of a group event in the form of a static demonstration (a “picket”), and confirmed the applicant’s role as its organiser. Thus, it was incumbent on the applicant to lodge a prior notification about this event to the competent authority as required by section 7 of the Public Events Act (“the PEA”).
8.  The applicant appealed noting that the PEA defined a “picket” as a form of public expression of opinion where one or more citizens with placards, banners and other means of visual expression stationed themselves near the target object of the “picket”. However, there had been a separate “target object” for each solo demonstrator; the demonstrators had been positioned at a considerable distance from each other (for instance, thirty metres for two of them); thus, he could not be lawfully considered as an organiser of a group event.
9.  On 22 January 2010 the Surgut Town Court upheld the judgment.