coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest.
6.  At 4.07 p.m. on 7 October 2009 the applicant notified the police that he planned to organise a demonstration from 2 to 7 p.m. on 10 October 2009 in front of the Venyige Street prison in Budapest, to protest against the “political persecution of national radicalism”. Venyige Street is a broad cul-de-sac with a service lane.
7.  A police officer from the police station that had received the notification repeatedly attempted to contact the applicant by phone, in line with the relevant decree issued by the Minister of the Interior on police tasks related to securing public order at major events, in order to arrange for a meeting. Despite making several attempts and leaving messages, however, he could not reach him.
8.  On 9 October 2009 the head of the Budapest Police Department banned the demonstration on the grounds that traffic could not be diverted to alternative routes (section 8(1) of the Assembly Act). In the decision, he referred to Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 11 of the Convention and Decision no. 55/2001.AB of the Constitutional Court.
9.  The applicant sought a judicial review of the decision within the statutory three-day time-limit.
10.  On 15 October 2009 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s case. It noted that in assessing whether or not traffic could be diverted to other routes, the authority had reckoned on the participation of some 200 demonstrators, as per the applicant’s notification, and that it had established that lawful parking and traffic circulation in the neighbourhood would become impossible should the event take place. The court agreed with the police’s decision in that although the right to assembly was a constitutional fundamental right, it was not absolute and must not give rise to a violation of the fundamental rights of others, and could therefore be restricted. The court was satisfied that the decision had been lawful as the police had adequately established the facts, complied with the procedural rules and applied clear assessment criteria, and the assessment of the evidence had been logical.
5.  The applicant, who was born in 1992, was detained at the Gaziantep Prison at the time when the application was lodged.
6.  On 26 December 2011 the Mersin Magistrates’ Court decided to restrict access to the file regarding an ongoing investigation against a terrorist organisation.
7.  On 29 December 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organisation and making its propaganda.
8.  On the same day the applicant’s police statement was taken at the Anti-Terror Branch of the Mersin Security Directorate, in the presence of his lawyer. He was mainly questioned about several records of telephone conversations as well as allegations about the burning of vehicles and throwing Molotov cocktails. He was questioned at length about the telephone conversations that had been intercepted. The police read out the transcripts of the telephone conversations and asked the applicant to comment on them. He was further asked questions about the incriminating statements of one of his co-accused. The applicant used his right to remain silent.
9.  On 30 December 2011 the Mersin Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
10.  On 16 March 2012 the applicant’s representative lodged an objection against the decision on the applicant’s detention, and requested his release. She also asked the court to lift the restriction of access to the investigation file. On 19 March 2012 the Mersin Magistrates’ Court dismissed the objection, without holding a hearing. The applicant’s representative filed a further objection against that decision.
11.  On 26 March 2012 the Mersin Assize Court dismissed the objection on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing.
12.  On 20 April 2012 the Mersin Magistrates’ Court ex officio examined the applicant’s detention on remand on the basis of the case-file and decided to extend it.
13.  On 10 September 2012 the Adana public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, accusing him mainly of being a member of a terrorist organisation, making propaganda in its favour, illegal possession of explosives, causing damage to property and having participated in an illegal armed demonstration.
14.  On 1 October 2012 the Adana Assize Court accepted the indictment. On the same date the restriction on the investigation file was lifted.
15.  According to the latest information in the case file, the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before assize court.
4.  The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix.
5.  At the material time the second applicant was a member of an opposition group Nida. The third applicant was a member of an opposition group İctimai Palata; he was also one of the organisers of several demonstrations held in Baku.
6.  The first and the second applicants participated in a demonstration organised by the opposition on 20 October 2012. Prior to that assembly, on 15 October 2012, the organisers gave notice to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”). The BCEA refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed a different location on the outskirts of Baku – the grounds of a driving school situated in the 20th residential area of the Sabail District. Nevertheless, the organisers decided to hold the demonstration as planned.
7.  The second applicant also participated in demonstrations held on 12 January and 26 January 2013. The third applicant participated in a demonstration held on 30 April 2013. The organisers of those demonstrations gave no proper prior notice to the BCEA. Information about the demonstrations was disseminated on the internet or in the press.
8.  According to the applicants, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants of the demonstration of 20 October 2012 were demanding democratic reforms in the country and free and fair elections, and protesting against impediments on freedom of assembly. The demonstration of 12 January was aimed at protesting about the deaths of soldiers in the army, while the demonstration of 26 January 2013 condemned the use of force by the police against the participants of previous demonstrations. The participants of the demonstration of 30 April 2013 were commemorating the victims of a terrorist attack which had been committed in 2009 at the Azerbaijan State Oil Academy.
9.  The police began to disperse the demonstrations of 20 October 2012, 12 January, 26 January and 30 April 2013 as soon as the protesters began to gather.
10.  The circumstances related to the dispersal of the demonstration of 20 October 2012, the first and second applicants’ arrests and custody, and subsequent administrative proceedings against them are similar to those in Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 60259/11, 15 October 2015) (see also Appendix).
11.  The circumstances related to the dispersal of the demonstrations of 12 January, 26 January and 30 April 2013, the second and third applicants’ arrests and custody, and the subsequent administrative proceedings against them are similar to those in Bayramov v. Azerbaijan ([Committee] nos. 19150/13 and 52022/13, 6 April 2017) (see also Appendix).
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lived before his arrest in the Arkhangelsk Region. He is currently detained in the town of Severodvinsk.
5.  On an unspecified date the applicant, while being on the wanted list after having breached his undertaking not to leave the place of his residence, was arrested on the charges of violent acts against a public official (Article 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). On 18 May 2010 the Severodvinsk Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region authorised his detention.
6.  On 2 September 2010 the applicant asked the Town Court to apply a non-custodial restraint measure to him. The applicant and his lawyer attended the hearing and made oral submissions. The Town Court dismissed the motion for release, having referred, in particular, to the applicant’s criminal record, which included two convictions for having mounted threats of violence against a judge, an offence under Article 296 of the Criminal Code, and for contempt of court, punishable under Article 297 of the Criminal Code. The applicant appealed.
7.  In the meantime, on 20 September 2010 the applicant was convicted as charged.
8.  On 12 October 2010 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the Town Court of 2 September 2010. With reference to its discretional powers under Article 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation the appeal court rejected the applicant’s leave to appear, and held the hearing in his absence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Staryy Oskol.
5.  The applicant took part in the cleaning up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site.
6.  On 5 July 2002 the Staryy Oskol Town Court of the Belgorod Region granted the applicant’s action against the Belgorod Regional Administration and awarded him and his family, comprising two members, a flat in the town of Staryy Oskol and 3,000 Russian roubles (approximately 100 euros) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The representative of the Regional Administration did not attend the hearing: in writing he had requested the Town Court to adjudicate the case in his absence.
7.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 15 July 2002.
8.  On 19 August 2002 the Staryy Oskol Town Court issued a writ of execution and enforcement proceedings were instituted.
9.  On 9 October 2002 the Belgorod Regional Administration lodged a statement of appeal against the judgment of 5 July 2002. The Administration also asked the Town Court to restore the ten-day time-limit for lodging the appeal. The Administration claimed that it had received a copy of the judgment of 5 July 2002 by fax on 8 October 2002. The Administration asked to stop the enforcement proceedings.
10.  The applicant insisted that there had been no reason to restore the time-limit. He noted that a copy of the judgment had been forwarded to the Regional Administration at the end of July 2002.
11.  On 14 October 2002 the Staryy Oskol Town Court restored the time-limit for lodging the appeal, accepted the Administration’s statement of appeal and stopped the enforcement proceedings.
12.  On 19 November 2002 the Belgorod Regional Court examined the Administration’s appeal, quashed the judgment of 5 July 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the Town Court.
13.  On 20 January 2003 the Staryy Oskol Town Court, in the new examination of the case, accepted the applicant’s action in part. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows:
“Order that the Belgorod Regional Administration should provide ... Mr Babynin G.A. and his family with housing premises, which satisfy sanitary and technical requirements, in their turn according to the housing waiting list of families having persons with disabilities and individuals who had taken part in the cleaning operation at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant.
Dismiss [the claim] for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.”
14.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 31 January 2003.
15.  On 13 February 2003 a writ of execution was issued and enforcement proceedings were instituted.
16.  According to the applicant, from 5 to 12 March 2004 a group of five people, including the applicant, began a hunger strike to protest against the poor level of welfare protection provided for the Chernobyl victims.
17.  On 16 April 2004 the mayor of Staryy Oskol decided to provide the applicant with a flat measuring 55,05 m².
18.  On 21 April 2004 the applicant received from the mayor an occupancy voucher in respect of the flat assigned to him. He found the flat satisfactory.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Pyatigorsk.
6.  The applicant took part in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. He was subsequently registered disabled by Ukrainian authorities, becoming entitled to various social benefits.
7.  In September 1999 the applicant settled in Russia. The welfare authorities rejected re-establishing the applicant’s disability status. The applicant challenged the rejection before the courts.
8.  On 30 August 2005 the Pyatigorsk Town Court granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the Administration of Labour and Social Security of the Population of Pyatigorsk to issue a certificate of benefits.
9.  On 20 September 2009 the judgment became final.
10.  On 18 October 2005 the applicant was issued with the certificate of benefits.
11.  On 1 November 2006 the Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court allowed the defendant authority’s application for supervisory review and quashed the judgment of 30 August 2005, considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law. The case was remitted for fresh consideration.
12.  On 13 December 2006 the the Pyatigorsk Town Court discontinued the proceedings since the parties failed to appear.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961.
5.  On 10 October 2003 a deputy prosecutor in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, added the applicant’s name to the list of fugitives from justice and issued an arrest warrant on suspicion of human trafficking with the purpose of sexual exploitation.
6.  On 26 February 2009 the applicant was arrested in Russia.
7.  On 28 February 2009 the Pechorskiy District Court in the Pskov Region ordered the applicant’s detention pending extradition, referring to Articles 108 and 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but without setting a time-limit.
8.  On 16 March 2009 the Russian Prosecutor General’s office received a request for the applicant’s extradition from his counterpart in Uzbekistan.
9.  On 15 May 2009 the deputy Russian Prosecutor General ordered the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan.
10.  The applicant challenged the extradition order before the Pskov Regional Court. On 26 June 2009 the Regional Court found that the extradition order was lawful. On 17 August 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision on appeal.
11.  On 17 October 2009 the applicant was extradited to Uzbekistan.
5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Perm.
6.  On 21 October 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion, kidnapping and fraud. Two days later the Leninskiy District Court of Perm authorised his detention.
7.  On 21 December 2006 the District Court held a hearing on extension of the applicant’s detention. The applicant asked to postpone the hearings for five days because his counsel was sick and could not attend. The District Court dismissed the request, assigned lawyer N. to represent the applicant, proceeded with the hearing and extended the applicant’s detention. The applicant’s objection to the participation of N. on account of their different defence strategies and N.’s limited knowledge of the case-file was also dismissed.
8.  The applicant and his counsel appealed, complaining, in particular, about a breach of the applicant’s right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing. On 18 January 2007 the Perm Regional Court upheld the detention order of 21 December 2006, having also noted that the legal aid lawyer N. had been appointed because the detention matter “had to be examined immediately”.
9.  On 19 January 2007 the District Court once again extended the applicant’s detention. On 8 February 2007 the Regional Court held the appeal hearing without informing the applicant in advance about the hearing date. The applicant’s counsel attended the appeal hearing and made oral submissions. The Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the detention order of 19 January 2007.
10.  The applicant’s detention was further extended on several occasions. In particular, on 16 March 2007 the measure of restraint was prolonged until 4 April 2007.
11.  On 21 March 2007 the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Regional Court. Five days later, on 26 March 2007, the trial court scheduled a preliminary hearing for 3 April 2007 and ruled that, in the meantime, the measure of restraint in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged until the preliminary hearing. The decision was delivered in a written procedure (without the parties being present).
12.  The applicant appealed, complaining, among other matters, that that decision in the part relating to his detention was unlawful and that it had been delivered in his and his lawyer’s absence. On 14 May 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision, having found, in particular, that the trial judge’s decision was no more than a restatement of the detention order of 16 March 2007 extending the applicant’s detention until 4 April 2007 (see paragraph 10 above).
13.  At the preliminary hearing on 3 April 2007 the trial court extended the applicant’s detention until 21 September 2007.
14.  On 1 June 2007 the applicant was convicted. On 22 September 2008 the Supreme Court upheld his conviction on appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Zákopčie.
5.  On 28 February 2011 the applicant was sued by his son in proceedings on child maintenance before the Čadca District Court (file no. 10 C 38/2011).
6.  During those proceedings he made an incomplete submission on 21 April 2011, which he supplemented the month after alleging that he had been waiting for a response from the Centre for Legal Aid in respect of his request for a legal aid lawyer. He also lodged two complaints with the president of the District Court about the excessive length of proceedings, namely on 9 February 2012 and 29 February 2012, which were unsuccessful. Having been dissatisfied with their outcome, he turned to the appellate court for review of his complaints to no avail.
7.  The District Court, on the other hand, took the following steps. It asked several public authorities, such as for example Social Security Authority and the Job Centre, to provide it with information relevant to the case. Between May 2012 and April 2014, it was dealing with an appointment of a guardian to the applicant, who at the material time was undergoing an ambulatory psychiatric treatment. Such an appointment was eventually revoked in September 2014 on the grounds that the Centre for Legal Aid had appointed a lawyer for the applicant in June 2014. The District Court also joined the present case file to another set of proceedings for several months. In January 2014, the District Court judge responsible for hearing the applicant’s case changed. The District Court further scheduled several hearings, which were either adjourned or cancelled.
8.  On 13 May 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings held before the District Court as manifestly ill-founded. It concluded that the District Court proceeded with the matter actively and properly, apart from a few minor exceptions, such as the joining of a case file to another set of proceedings, changing of the judge and a procedural error made during one of the hearings. In particular, the Constitutional Court took into account the fact that the applicant had complained of excessive delays with the president of the District Court and challenged them further on appeal on each occasion.
9.  Subsequently, the District Court took several steps as follows. It asked for further information from inter alia the applicant’s employer. It also scheduled a hearing for 12 August 2015, which was adjourned to 31 August 2015. It then postponed the latter hearing to an unspecified date, since it had to deal with a procedural request from the plaintiff, which was also challenged on appeal. In the absence of any further information from the parties, it appears that the proceedings are still pending and no judgment on the merits has been delivered by the District Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Kyiv.
6.  On 7 May 2015 the applicant stood trial before the Kyiv Obolonsky District Court, charged with unlawful purchase and possession of large quantities of narcotic drugs, an offence under Article 309 § 2 of the Criminal Code. A prosecutor was present. The applicant was unrepresented.
7.  It appears from the trial court judgment that when questioned in the course of the trial, the applicant stated that he had been feeling unwell so had been taking Tramadol to relieve the pain. He admitted that on 22 January 2015 he had bought ten blisters of Tramadol, a narcotic-like pain reliever, from a stranger in the street for the equivalent of about EUR 53 and had been arrested shortly afterwards. He expressed remorse and asked for leniency in sentencing. In view of those admissions the trial court, relying on Article 349 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) (see paragraph 13 below), ruled it unnecessary to examine the evidence related to the “circumstances”, which were “not contested by any party”. On the same day the trial court convicted the applicant of illegal purchase and possession of drugs, an offence under Article 309 § 2 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment.
8.  The applicant appealed, arguing that his admissions before the trial court had related only to the facts and not to the legal classification of the offence, which he maintained was erroneous. He argued that mere possession of Tramadol was not unlawful as such, except where it was in breach of the applicable regulations. For this reason, his acts should have been classified not under Article 309 of the Criminal Code as drug possession but rather under Article 320 of the Criminal Code, namely breach of the rules related to the purchase and circulation of drugs and analogous products.
9.  On 1 July 2015 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, sitting as a single‑judge formation, denied the applicant leave to appeal. The court stated that the applicant had admitted the circumstances of the offence and the trial court had then proceeded under Article 349 § 3 of the CCP. However, in his appeal the applicant was contesting his conviction under Article 309 of the Criminal Code and the legal classification of his actions. The court held that, because of the applicant’s admission and the procedure used at the trial under Article 394 § 2 of the CCP (see paragraph 14 below), the decision was not amenable to appeal on the grounds invoked by the applicant.
10.  On 3 August 2015 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant, holding that the Court of Appeal’s decision had complied with the rules of criminal procedure.