coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicants were born in 1932, 1929, 1965 and 1956 respectively and live in Sofia.
6.  On 15 January 1968 the second applicant, together with the antecedents of the other applicants, bought from the then existing local agricultural co-operative a plot of land situated on the outskirts of Sofia measuring 953 square metres. Until 2002 the applicants or their antecedents enjoyed undisturbed possession of that land.
7.  On 10 May 2002 a group of persons, the heirs of Mr T.S., Mr G.S. and Ms K.S., brought against the applicants a rei vindicatio action, stating that the plot of land was theirs. They stated that the plot, once the property of their antecedents, had been collectivised in the years after 1945, but had been returned to them within the context of the process of the restitution of agricultural land by a decision of the relevant body, the local land commission, dated 27 December 1999. They claimed that under section 10(13) of the Agricultural Land Act (see paragraph 13 below), the fact that the second applicant and the remaining applicants’ antecedents had purchased the land in 1968 could not be held against them.
8.  Initially, the Sofia District Court (its judgement is undated) dismissed the action against the applicants. After an appeal by the heirs of Mr T.S., Mr G.S. and Ms K.S., on 5 November 2009 the Sofia City Court overturned that ruling, allowed the rei vindicatio claim and ordered the applicants to surrender possession of the plot. It found in particular that the land commission’s decision of 27 December 1999 was sufficient to render the claimants the owners of the disputed land. It pointed out that of the two rival claims to the same plot the law – namely section 10(13) of the Agricultural Land Act – gave priority to the one based on restitution, and thus had the effect of rendering devoid of any legal force the contract under which the second applicant and the remaining applicants’ predecessors had bought the plot.
9.  In a final decision of 18 June 2010 the Supreme Court of Cassation declined to entertain a cassation appeal by the applicants.
10.  On an unspecified date soon after that the applicants surrendered possession of the plot.
5.  The applicants were born on 18 September 1971 and 24 December 1994 respectively and live in Moscow.
6.  A two-roomed flat at 29-1-26 Ozernaya Ulitsa, Moscow, was owned by the city. G. and her son resided there as tenants under the social housing agreement with the city.
7.  On 16 November 2002 G. died. On 17 September 2003 the municipal authorities de-registered her tenancy.
8.  On 3 October 2003 G.’s son died. On an unspecified date the municipal authorities de-registered his tenancy.
9.  On an unspecified date A. submitted a forged copy of a court judgment to the Department of the Municipal Housing and Housing Policy (the “Housing Department”) recognising her right to reside in the flat and on 9 February 2005 the Housing Department entered into a social housing lease agreement with A. and her family.
10.  On 25 February 2005 the Housing Department transferred the title to the flat to A., her husband and her daughter under the privatisation scheme.
11.  On 15 December 2005 A. and her husband sold the flat to the applicant. On 29 December 2005 the city registration body issued a certificate confirming the first applicant’s title to the flat. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there.
12.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department obtained information that the court judgment submitted by A. might have been forged and on 15 December 2005 the housing authorities asked the prosecutor’s office to conduct a relevant inquiry.
13.  On 20 March 2008 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow invalidated the social housing lease agreement of 9 February 2005 and the privatisation agreement of 25 February 2005.
14.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought an action against the applicants seeking the transfer of the flat to the city and the applicants’ eviction.
15.  On 9 October 2009 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. The court ruled that the case 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 previous owner who had been deprived of the property against his or her will. The first applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to the City of Moscow. The court also ordered the applicants’ eviction. The applicants appealed.
16.  On 25 February 2010 the City Court upheld the judgment of 9 October 2009 on appeal.
17.  On an unspecified date the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings.
18.  On 12 March 2012 the District Court granted the applicant’s additional time to comply with the judgment of 9 October 2009. The applicants were required to vacate the flat by 1 August 2012. On 14 May 2012 the City Court upheld the said decision on appeal.
19.  The applicants continued to reside in the flat. On 14 August 2013 the Housing Department entered into a housing agreement with them in respect of the flat for a term of five years.
6.  The applicant was born in 1965. On 27 March 2009 the Leningrad Regional Court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years and six months’ imprisonment. Since January 2010 he has been serving the sentence in correctional colony no. IK-4, in Fornosovo, Leningrad Region.
7.  According to the applicant, his eyesight began deteriorating in 2008. In September 2010 he complained about this to a resident colony doctor.
8.  Eight months later the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist, who visited the detention facility. The doctor diagnosed an “almost mature” cataract of the right eye and a focal cataract of the left eye. An in-depth medical examination in a hospital was recommended.
9.  On 1 July 2011 the applicant was sent to a prison hospital for an examination by an ophthalmologist. The ophthalmologist confirmed the presence of cataracts on both eyes. He established that the patient had lost his vision in his right eye and prescribed cataract surgery. It was noted that owing to the lack of intraocular lenses in stock and the overcrowding of the facility, the surgery would have to be performed later, in a “planned manner”.
10.  The applicant was sent back to the detention facility, the ophthalmologist having recommended that the applicant undergo another eye examination between January and March 2012.
11.  On 7 April 2012 the applicant complained about the quality of medical assistance he had received to the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences in St Petersburg. His complaint was then referred to the medical unit of his detention facility, which dismissed it in a letter dated 25 April 2012, stating that the patient had been provided with medical assistance in full.
12.  In May 2012 the applicant was seen by the head of the medical unit and put on a waiting list for admission to the ophthalmological department of the prison hospital for a medical examination and eye surgery.
13.  On 24 October 2013 the applicant was seen by an ophthalmologist. The doctor endorsed the advice that the applicant had received on 1 July 2011 and confirmed that he needed cataract surgery.
14.  On 14 January and 22 June 2014 the applicant underwent repeated eye examinations, which revealed that the cataract on his left eye was growing. The need for surgery was again noted. The surgery was performed in the prison hospital on 1 October 2014.
4.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Perm.
5.  On 22 April 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing and was placed in pre-trial detention on the ground that he was suspected of committing a serious offence, was a foreign national, had no permanent place of residence in Perm, no job, no income, he could abscond and commit crimes.
6.  On 18 June 2008 the Permskiy District Court of the Perm Region extended his pre-trial detention on the same grounds.
7.  On 5 August 2008 the Permskiy District Court issued the first conviction which was quashed by the Perm Regional Court on 14 October 2008. The court held that the applicant should remain in detention without indicating any reasons.
8.  By decisions of 1 November 2008 and 18 March 2009, as upheld on appeal, the Permskiy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention reiterating its earlier reasoning and stating that he could interfere with the investigation and put pressure on witnesses.
9.  On 20 May 2010 the District Court issued a new conviction. On 14 December 2010 the Perm Regional Court quashed this conviction. The applicant remained in detention.
10.  On 26 May 2011 the Perm Regional Court convicted the applicant of drug dealing and smuggling and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. On 25 October 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia commuted the sentence to 8 years’ imprisonment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and died on 27 May 2014. On 24 October 2014 his wife, Mrs Schwab, was established as his heir.
6.  As of 1987 the applicant had intermittently received emergency relief benefits (Notstandshilfe) under the Unemployment Insurance Act (Arbeitslosenversicherungsgesetz).
7.  On 4 February 2008 the Vienna Prandaugasse Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarktservice) retroactively revoked these benefits in so far as they related to the period from 22 August 2002 to 31 July 2007, and ordered the applicant to refund the payments concerned, holding that he had not been entitled to them as he had been living in a joint household with his wife during that period.
8.  The applicant appealed, claiming that his wife had moved to her parents’ house in September 2000, and that they had been running separate households ever since.
9.  On 8 August 2008 the Vienna Regional Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarktservice Landesgeschäftsstelle; hereinafter, “the Labour Market Service”) dismissed the appeal. It held that its preliminary investigations had not shown that the applicant and his wife had terminated their joint household during the period in question.
10.  The applicant made a request to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) for legal aid to lodge a complaint against this decision. On 6 November 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the request for lack of prospects of success.
11.  On 6 November 2008 the applicant complained to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) about the Labour Market Service’s decision of 8 August 2008 (see paragraph 9 above), explicitly requesting an oral hearing before the Administrative Court. He contested, inter alia, that he had been living in a joint household with his wife during the period in question.
12.  By decision of 25 May 2011 the Administrative Court, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the complaint as unfounded. It held that the Labour Market Service had, in view of the evidence established during its preliminary investigations, reasonably assumed that the applicant had been living in a joint household with his wife. The applicant’s request for an oral hearing was not addressed.
13.  The Administrative Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 17 June 2011.
4.  The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5.  The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
6.  The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant.
7.  In particular, the Government acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in facility no. IZ-42/2 in Novokuznetsk had not complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the sum of 4,480 euros and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s judgement. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the abovementioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The declaration did not mention the applicant’s complaint concerning the inadequate conditions of detention in correctional colonies, no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil and no. IK-2 in Yekaterinburg.
8.  The applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the declaration.
5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Balıkesir.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 26 May 2010 the applicant was dismissed from his post as an officer in the army due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules.
8.  On 22 June 2010 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court and requested the annulment of his dismissal. On 9 November 2010 the chief public prosecutor submitted his observations to the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These observations were notified to the applicant and he replied to it in his petition of 14 December 2010.
9.  On 8 February 2011 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case taking into account the “secret documents” submitted by the Ministry of Defence. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.
10.  On 26 April 2011 the applicant’s request for rectification was rejected by the same court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Ankara.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 13 April 2010 the applicant was dismissed from his post as an officer in the army due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules.
8.  On 16 May 2010 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court and requested the annulment of his dismissal. On 21 October 2010 the chief public prosecutor submitted his observations to the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These observations were notified to the applicant and he replied to it in his petition of 24 January 2011.
9.  On 15 February 2011 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action having regard to the “secret documents” submitted by the Ministry of Defence. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.
10.  On 3 May 2011 the applicant’s request for rectification of the above judgment was rejected by the same court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1992 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 15 February 2009 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Istanbul Police Headquarters on suspicion of being involved in the activities of a terrorist organisation.
7.  On 18 February 2009 the applicant’s statement was taken by the public prosecutor. The same day the investigating judge at the Istanbul Assize Court ordered that the applicant be detained on remand taking into account the strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence he was charged with and risk of tampering with evidence.
8.  On 27 March 2009 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court. He charged the applicant with membership of an armed terrorist organisation, making the propaganda of an armed terrorist organisation, contravening the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act (Law no. 2911), and causing damage to public property.
9.  On 5 May 2009 at the end of the preparatory hearing, the Istanbul Assize Court decided that the applicant’s detention should be continued taking into account the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the fact that his statements had not yet been taken.
10.  On 2 October 2009 the applicant’s trial resumed. At the first hearing, in the presence of the applicant, the court ordered that the applicant’s detention on remand be continued on the same grounds.
11.  At hearings held on 16 February 2010 and 8 June 2010, respectively, the applicant’s requests to be released from detention on remand were rejected by the trial court. The applicant filed objections against these decisions. On 15 March 2010 and 7 July 2010, the Istanbul Assize Court dismissed the objections. The court decided on the basis of the case file, without holding a public hearing. In delivering its decisions, the court also took into consideration the written opinion of the public prosecutors, which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative.
12.  On 23 November 2010 the Istanbul Assize Court released the applicant from detention on remand taking into account the period he had remained in detention.
13.  On 17 October 2010 the case was transferred to the Juvenile Court.
14.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Istanbul Anadolu Juvenile Court.
6.  On 9 August 2004 the applicant lodged a civil claim concerning a property issue against eleven other persons with the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Herceg Novi.
7.  On 15 March 2011 the Court of First Instance in Herceg Novi ruled partly in favour of the applicant.
8.  On 18 March 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal with the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica.
9.  On 8 November 2013 the High Court in Podgorica quashed the judgement and remitted the case back to the Court of First Instance.
10.  On 6 July 2015 the Court of First Instance in Herceg Novi ruled against the applicant. On 3 August 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment. The proceedings are still pending at the second instance.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Taganrog.
5.  In 1978 the applicant and her sister inherited a house.
6.  In 2001 the applicant had a civil dispute with her sister regarding division of the house. On 17 January 2001 the Taganrog Town Court determined that the sisters had equal shares in respect of the inherited property.
7.  On 29 May 2002 the Taganrog Town Court factually determined the equal shares of the house, as well as the way of its sharing. On 31 July 2002 the Rostov Regional Court upheld this judgment.
8.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s sister lodged a separate claim, requesting the court to acknowledge her property right to the corridor and the kitchen in the house, referring to the fact that she had invested in their reconstruction in 1989 and built some attachments to the house.
9.  On 17 October 2003 the Taganrog Town Court held that the attachments to the house belonged to the applicant’s sister because she had built them after the inheritance. The court increased the share of the applicant’s sister in the property up to 64/100 and reduced the applicant’s part to 36/100. On 26 November 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld this judgment.
10.  On 22 October 2004 the Taganrog Town Court on request of the applicant’s sister held that the judgment of 17 October 2003 established “new circumstances”, i.e. that the attachments in the house had been built by the applicant’s sister. Thus the court quashed the judgment of 29 May 2002 and re-opened the case on account of the “newly-discovered circumstances which were not and could not have been known at the moment of delivering the judgment of 29 May 2002”.
11.  The proceedings resumed, but on 8 February 2005 the applicant withdrew her claim and the proceedings were terminated.
12.  In March 2005 the applicant’s sister again filed an action seeking to divide their property in kind.
13.  On 10 October 2006 the Taganrog Town Court granted her claims. The house was divided in two parts and the parties were ordered to pay dividing costs. The court rendered the judgment in the absence of the applicant and her representative on the ground that she failed to appear without any reasons despite her having been duly summoned to the hearing. The court noted that the applicant had attended several hearings and had already presented her arguments on the merits. It also mentioned that the applicant had begun to avoid the court hearings in order to delay the trial. The applicant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had rendered the judgment in her absence though she had been ill.
14.  On 6 December 2006 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. As to the applicant’s absence, the court found that the applicant had been properly notified about the hearing in question but had failed to inform the trial court that she had been ill and never requested to suspend the proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia.
6.  The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 18 September 1995 the applicant and her family members instituted proceedings before the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Herceg Novi, seeking division of their joint property.
8.  On 5 May 1997 the Court of First Instance in Herceg Novi discontinued these proceedings and instructed the parties to initiate a separate civil case given a number of contentious issues.
9.  On 8 September 1997 the applicant’s cousins brought a claim against the applicant and her parents before the Court of First Instance in Herceg Novi. On 30 December 1997, the cousins lodged an additional claim concerning the same matter. Both claims were subsequently joined and examined in the same civil proceedings.
10.  On 1 October 2002 the Court of First Instance in Herceg Novi ruled against the applicant and her parents.
11.  On 25 June 2004 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica upheld this judgment on appeal. The judgment, thereby, became final. It was served on the applicant on 15 July 2004.
12.  On 17 August 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court of Montenegro.
13.  This appeal was misplaced until 20 January 2006, when the applicant’s lawyers intervened and urged the authorities to find it. On 12 January 2007 the applicant amended her appeal on points of law.
14.  On 14 February 2008 the Supreme Court of Montenegro rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as unfounded. This decision was served on the applicant on 6 March 2008.