coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Shakhty, the Rostov Region.
6.  On 29 March 2005 the Rostov-na-Donu Military Court (“the military court”) ordered, inter alia, the commander of the military unit no. 3654 (“the military unit”) to provide the applicant certain monetary compensation and allowance for the periods specified in the operative part of the judgment. The judgment came into force on 15 April 2005.
7.  According to the applicant, having received the writ of execution, he forwarded it to the commander of the military unit who partly executed the judgment (see paragraph 9 below).
8.  According to the Government, on 6 May 2005 the applicant received two writs of execution in his case and sent them to the military unit.
9.  According to the parties, the judgment was enforced only in part. On 22 August 2005 approximately 68,000 Russian roubles were paid to the applicant in execution of the judgment. As the Government submitted in their observations, the allowance for the period from 1 March 2003 until the date of the applicant’s reinstatement in military service as well as some additional payments due to the applicant under the judgment of 29 March 2005 had not been transferred to him.
10.  As submitted by the applicant, despite his subsequent requests, the original copy of the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 29 March 2005 was never returned to him by the military unit. Therefore, on an unspecified date he requested the military court to issue a duplicate of the enforcement document. However, his application was rejected.
11.  In 2005, 2006 and 2008 the applicant applied for an additional decision to be made in his civil case against the military unit which resulted in the judgment of 29 March 2005. He considered that an additional decision specifying the amounts to be paid to him under the judgment of 29 March 2005 would resolve his difficulties in claiming the outstanding amounts. In his application of 26 May 2006 he also asked the court to index‑link the delayed payments and claimed non-pecuniary damage for the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 29 March 2005. The military court rejected all of the applicant’s claims, explaining that he should have applied for an additional decision before the entry into force of the judgment of 29 March 2005.
12.  On 3 April 2008 the military court refused the applicant’s request to clarify the judgment of 29 March 2005 by indicating the specific amounts to be paid. The court considered that the applicant’s request amounted to a call to amend the judgment rather than to clarify it. It held that the text of the judgment was clear enough and the applicant’s disagreement with the way it had been enforced was not a sufficient ground for clarifying the judgment. On 14 May 2008 this decision was upheld on appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Pechora, the Komi Republic.
5.  The applicant sued the Municipal Unitary Enterprise for Housing and Communal Services (MUP Pechorazhilkomhoz or MUP PZHKH – МУП Печоражилкомхоз – hereafter “the company”) of Pechora, the Komi Republic, for salary arrears.
6.  On 31 May 2007 the Justice of the Peace of the Privokzalnyy Court Circuit of Pechora awarded the applicant the equivalent of 18,358 euros (EUR) of the salary owed to him for the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2006. The judgment became final ten days later.
7.  On 12 January 2009 the Pechora Town Court granted another claim which the applicant had lodged against the company, awarding him EUR 592. The judgment became final ten days later.
8.  Neither judgment has been enforced.
9.  The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise. It was set up by a decision of the local administration to provide heating supply and housing maintenance services in the local area. The company had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it by the administration in order to carry out its statutory activities.
10.  In 2006 the owner (the local administration) withdrew several of the company’s assets and transferred them either to the local treasury or to other legal entities.
11.  On 17 January 2007 the respondent company was declared insolvent and liquidation proceedings started.
12.  The company sued the owner in subsidiary liability proceedings. On 13 May 2009 the Commercial Court of the Komi Republic dismissed that action, having found that the owner had acted without intending to cause the company’s insolvency when transferring the assets.
13.  On 16 June 2009 the company was liquidated.
14.  The applicant brought subsidiary liability proceedings against the owner before the Pechora Town Court, arguing, inter alia, that the company’s insolvency had been premeditated. On 21 June 2012 the court dismissed the applicant’s claim against the owner as unfounded. On 3 September 2012 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld that decision.
5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Cocieri.
6.  The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004‑VII) and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
7.  On 22 August 2010 the applicant, who is an entrepreneur, was transporting merchandise to an agricultural market in the town of Dubasari in the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”). He was stopped by two persons presenting themselves as customs officers of the “MRT” who seized his van and the merchandise contained therein on account of his having allegedly failed to register the vehicle. On 7 October 2010 the “MRT” customs authority issued a decision obliging the applicant to pay a fine of some 1,320 euros (EUR) in return for being able to recover his van and merchandise. The applicant paid the fine.
8.  In the meantime the applicant complained to the authorities of the Republic of Moldova about the seizure of his van and merchandise. On 9 September 2010 the Dubasari prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the facts of the case and several suspects were declared wanted. However, the investigation was suspended in 2014.
9.  On 21 July 1992 the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova signed an agreement in Moscow to put an end to the military conflict in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova. Under the agreement, a security zone was created between the conflicting parties and a Joint Control Commission (hereinafter “the JCC”) was set up to monitor the implementation of the agreement in the security zone. The JCC is composed of representatives of Russia, the Republic of Moldova, and the “MRT”. Any decisions made by the JCC must have the consent of all the parties (for more details, see Ilaşcu and Others (cited above, §§ 87-91).
10.  Reports by inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of the Republic of Moldova, and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, ECHR 2016).
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bela Crkva.
6.  He was employed by “Betonjerka”- DP, a socially-owned company based in Bela Crkva (hereinafter “the debtor”).
7.  On 20 May 2003 the Bela Crkva Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. On the same day this judgment became final.
8.  On 14 October 2003 upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Bela Crkva Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs.
9.  The Government in its observations maintained that the said judgment had been fully enforced by the domestic decisions of 2 December 2004, 4 November 2005 and 19 May 2006 respectively. The applicant did not contest this submission.
10.  On 10 February 2009 the Bela Crkva Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant other specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions. In addition the domestic court ordered each party to pay its own costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final on 18 February 2009.
11.  On 30 April 2009 upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Bela Crkva Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs.
12.  The said decision remains unenforced to the present date.
13.  On 12 May 2009 the Pančevo Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor.
14.  On 22 September 2009, upon a submission to that effect, the Pančevo Commercial Court recognized the applicant’s respective claims.
15.  On 27 August 2012 the Pančevo Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings against the debtor, having decided to continue with the insolvency action against the debtor’s estate.
16.   The insolvency proceedings are still pending.
17.  On 8 August 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining firstly about the fairness of the insolvency proceedings. Further, he requested the Constitutional Court to adopt a decision obliging the respondent State to pay from its own funds his unpaid salaries. In particular, the applicant had referred only to the judgment which had been adopted in his favour on 10 February 2009. In so doing, the applicant also relied on the Court’s case-law related to the non-enforcement of domestic court decision rendered against socially-owned companies in Serbia.
18.  On 31 March 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal finding that it is not vested with the power of the insolvency court to enable the payments of the claims recognized in the insolvency proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Vladimir.
5.  In 2008 the applicant was indicted with fraud. On 21 March 2008 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir (“the district court”) ordered temporary suspension of the applicant from the post of the chief accountant of municipal hospital no. 4. At the same time, the district court awarded the applicant an allowance for the period of the suspension in the amount of five statutory monthly wages. The decision came into force on 1 April 2008.
6.  On 11 August 2009 the district court cancelled the suspension of the applicant from the office as no longer necessary. The decision came into force on 24 August 2009.
7.  On 12 July 2010 the Presidium of the Vladimir Regional Court (“the regional court”) quashed the decision of the district court of 21 March 2008 in the part concerning the monthly allowance. The Presidium of the regional court found that while ordering the suspension and the allowance for the period of such suspension, the district court had failed to specify from which funds the allowance was payable, thus the decision of the district court in that part had remained unenforced. The case was remitted for a new examination.
8.  On 3 August 2010 the district court awarded the applicant monthly allowance for the period of her suspension from the office in the amount of 266,812.92 Russian roubles. The allowance was to be paid from the federal budget. That decision was upheld on appeal on 22 September 2010.
9.  On 31 January 2011 the amount mentioned above was transferred to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 22 December 2009 the Ankara Magistrates’ Court decided to restrict access to the investigation file in accordance with Article 153 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the “CCP”), Law no. 5271
7.  On 9 February 2010 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of forming a criminal organisation and fraudulent use of credit cards.
8.  On 11 February 2010 the applicant’s statement was taken by the police in the presence of his lawyer and he was questioned at length about his telephone conversations that had been intercepted. The police read out the transcripts of the intercepted conversations, and the applicant did not deny that he had had these conversations but claimed that they did not prove that he was guilty.
9.  On 12 February 2010 the investigating judge questioned the applicant in the presence of his lawyer. The applicant denied that he was involved in a criminal organisation and submitted that the intercepted calls did not prove that he was guilty. The investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand taking into account the strong suspicion that he had committed the alleged offence, the risk of absconding and tampering with evidence as well as the risk of coercing some of the witnesses and victims.
10.  On various dates the applicant requested his release pending trial. These requests were dismissed by the courts, having regard to the nature of the offence with which the applicant was charged, the existence of a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question, the state of the evidence, the risk of absconding and tampering with evidence as well as the time spent in detention. The applicant objected to these decisions. By decisions of 22 April 2010 and 20 October 2010 the appeal courts, without holding a hearing, rejected the applicant’s objections based on the information contained in the case file.
11.  Upon his application, on 19 January 2011, the 26th Chamber of Ankara Criminal Court ordered the applicant’s release having regard to the time he spent in detention.
5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Calaraseuca.
6.  On 27 July 2005 the applicant was stopped by the traffic police for speeding.
7.  By an order of 5 September 2005 the traffic police fined the applicant 60 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of some 4 euros (EUR) at the time). The applicant did not challenge the police order.
8.  As the applicant failed to pay the fine, on an unspecified date a bailiff applied to the Ocnita District Court to have the fine converted into thirty days’ administrative detention, under Article 26 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (see paragraph 14 below). According to the bailiff, the applicant had been ordered to pay the fine by 28 February 2006; however, he had failed to do so and had thus acted in bad faith.
9.  On 26 May 2006, at a hearing conducted without the presence of the parties, the Ocnita District Court accepted the bailiff’s request and ordered the applicant’s administrative detention for a period of thirty days. The document constituting the court’s decision was a pre-printed template which the judge had completed by hand with the specific details of the case, such as the names of the judge, the applicant and the bailiff, the relevant dates, the amount of the fine, the applicant’s address and the number of days of detention to be served by the applicant. It did not contain any indication that the applicant had been summoned to appear at the hearing.
10.  At 8 a.m. on 12 June 2006 the applicant was arrested at home and placed in detention. At about 5 p.m. the same day he suffered a heart attack and was taken by ambulance to a hospital. He recovered shortly thereafter and was soon discharged from hospital.
11.  On 16 June 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal against the Ocnita District Court’s decision of 26 May 2006, arguing, inter alia, that he had not been summoned to appear at the hearing of 26 May 2006, that he had had no knowledge of the decision of 26 May 2006 prior to his arrest, and that he had not been given a chance to contest the court’s decision before being placed in detention. The applicant also argued that the traffic police’s order of 5 September 2005 imposing a fine on him for speeding had been abusive because the police had no evidence to prove that it had been his car which had been caught speeding and not other cars on the road.
12.  On 30 August 2006 the Balti Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the applicant had not challenged the traffic police’s order of 5 September 2005 within the statutory time-limit. The Court of Appeal did not respond to the applicant’s argument about the failure to summon him to the hearing of 26 May 2006.
13.  It does not appear from the materials of the case that the applicant served the rest of the detention term.
4.  The applicant, Mr Gökhan Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983. He was detained in Tekirdağ F-type prison at the time of the introduction of the application with the Court.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 11 November 2002 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul police headquarters on suspicion of membership of TKP/ML-TIKKO, an illegal organisation.
7.  On 14 November 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
8.  On 26 December 2002 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant and ten other persons with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence prescribed by Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.
9.  Following the promulgation of Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, the case against the applicant was transferred to 10th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court.
10.  During the proceedings, the first-instance courts examined the applicant’s continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicant’s request.
11.  On 25 December 2007, at the end of the hearing and in the presence of the applicant, the 10th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant’s continued detention. The applicant objected to this decision. On 27 December 2007 the 11th Chamber of Istanbul Assize Court dismissed his objection without holding an oral hearing and relying on the public prosecutor’s opinion which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative.
12.  On 24 March 2009 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation and became final on 20 January 2011.
5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Şanlıurfa.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 22 July 2008 the applicant was dismissed from her post of officer in the army due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules and immoral behavior.
8.  On 14 August 2008 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court and requested the annulment of her dismissal.
9.  On 16 June 2009 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case taking into account “secret documents” submitted by the Ministry of Defence. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.
10.  On 29 September 2009 the applicant’s request for rectification was rejected by the same court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is detained in Vadul lui Voda.
6.  On 22 February 2002 at 7 a.m. the applicant was arrested and placed in detention. She was released at 4.40 p.m. on the same day after a court had found that her detention had been abusive and had ordered her release.
7.  In the meantime, during her detention, the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment by the police. In particular, she was punched and strangled. After release, the applicant went to a hospital, where she was diagnosed with concussion and multiple bruises on her head and neck. She lodged a criminal complaint in relation to the above-mentioned facts; however, it was not successful.
8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the State, claiming compensation for unlawful detention and ill‑treatment.
9.  By a final judgment of 9 August 2012, the Supreme Court of Justice found a breach of the applicant’s rights, as guaranteed by Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, on account of her unlawful detention and ill-treatment on 22 February 2002. The Supreme Court also found a breach of the applicant’s rights, as guaranteed by Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, on account of the length and ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation conducted into the applicant’s complaints of abusive actions on the part of the police. The Supreme Court awarded her 3,200 euros (EUR) in compensation.
4.  The applicants were born in 1978, 1980 and 2007 respectively.
5.  The first applicant came to Bulgaria in 1997. In 2001 he was granted long-term resident status, and in 2003 – permanent resident status. In 2005 he married the second applicant, and in 2007 the third applicant, their son, was born.
6.  On 29 May 2008 the head of the National Security Service issued an order withdrawing the first applicant’s residence permit, ordering his expulsion and imposing a ten-year ban on his re‑entering Bulgaria on the ground that his presence in the country represented a “serious threat to national security”. Factual grounds justifying the order were not indicated; it was merely noted that it was based on “proposal no. B848”.
7.  That proposal, drawn up by the National Security Service on 27 May 2008 and initially classified, was declassified in 2016 and has been submitted by the Government. It stated that the first applicant was a member of a “Russian criminal group” implicated in money laundering, extortion, smuggling, illegal arms deals and the financing of “terrorist groups” on the territory of the Russian Federation. It said further that the first applicant had lowered Bulgaria’s international reputation, by “implicating the country in the financing of terrorist organisations, transnational criminality, corruption and drug trafficking”. No evidence was provided to substantiate those claims.
8.  On 12 June 2008 the first applicant applied for judicial review of the order of 29 May 2008. He denied the allegations against him and stated that his family resided in Bulgaria and that the measures against him breached his Convention rights. In addition, he presented a certificate that he had no criminal convictions in Bulgaria.
9.  In a final judgment of 8 January 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the application for judicial review and held that the 29 May 2008 order was lawful. After summarising the allegations made in proposal no. B848, it held merely that they were sufficient to justify a conclusion that the first applicant represented a threat to national security. Furthermore, it dismissed his arguments relating to his family life, considering that
“any restriction of the rights under the Convention is justified [when based] on national security considerations, in cases where foreign citizens’ behaviour threatens the national security and the public order of the State where they reside.”
10.  The first applicant was expelled on 24 April 2009. It is unclear whether the second and third applicants remained in Bulgaria after that. In 2012 the first and second applicants had another child.