coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and is detained in Sztum.
6.  At the time of the events in question, the applicant was serving a prison sentence in the Barczewo prison.
7.  On 8 January 2011 the applicant’s grandmother died. On 10 January 2011 the applicant lodged a request with the Director of Prison and the Penitentiary judge for leave to attend her funeral which was to take place on 12 January 2011. Together with his application he submitted a statement from his sister E.K. who confirmed that she would personally collect the applicant from prison and bring him back after the funeral.
8.  On 11 January 2011 the Penitentiary judge of the Olsztyn Regional Court (Sędzia Penitencjarny Sądu Okręgowego w Olsztynie) allowed the applicant to attend the funeral under prison officers’ escort. The reasoning of the decision read as follows:
“In view of [the applicant’s] multiple convictions and his long term of imprisonment there is no guarantee that he will return to prison”
9.  The applicant refused to attend the funeral, since he believed his appearance under escort of uniformed officers would create a disturbance during the ceremony.
10.  On the same day the applicant lodged an appeal with the Olsztyn Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) complaining that the compassionate leave was granted under escort and also that he was only allowed to participate in the funeral (not the preceding church service).
11.  On 3 February 2011 the Olsztyn Regional Court upheld the Penitentiary judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The court stressed that the applicant had been allowed to participate in the funeral under prison officers’ escort. It further noted that the applicant was a habitual offender sentenced to a long term of imprisonment therefore there was no positive criminological prognosis and no guarantee that he would have returned to prison after the ceremony.
5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and is currently in detention in Lublin.
6.  On an unspecified date before October 2011 the applicant was convicted of assault and of endangering lives through arson and extortion.
7.  On 14 October 2011, the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) imposed a special regime for detainees deemed to be dangerous (“the dangerous detainee regime”) on the applicant. The commission referred to the fact that the applicant had organised a collective protest in Opole Lubelskie Prison, namely, a hunger strike by prisoners, and that he had planned an attack on a prison employee. It also found that the applicant had received disciplinary punishments on many occasions, in particular for the attempted smuggling of psychoactive substances into prison.
8.  The applicant did not appeal against the decision to impose the regime on him.
9.  The decision was reviewed and upheld by the commission every three months.
10.  On 12 January 2012 the commission again reviewed the situation and upheld its decision, considering that the applicant posed a serious danger to the security of the prison. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
11.  On 11 April 2012 the commission reviewed and upheld its decision, relying on the same grounds as previously. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 16 May 2012 the commission examined the applicant’s appeal and upheld its earlier decision. It referred to the applicant’s conduct, finding that he had often behaved aggressively. It also referred to the applicant’s highly deficient moral character (wysoki stopień demoralizacji), and the fact that he had been the leader of a collective protest in Opole Lubelskie Prison (the prisoners’ hunger strike) and had planned an attack on a prison employee. The applicant lodged a court appeal against the commission’s decision.
13.  On 13 June 2012 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the decision had been lawful.
14.  On 14 July 2012 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission lifted the dangerous detainee regime in respect of the applicant. It based its decision on the applicant’s good behaviour and the fact that he no longer posed a danger to the prison.
15.  The applicant’s cell, including its sanitary facilities, was constantly monitored via closed-circuit television. The window was covered with a plastic blind. The applicant was subjected to a body search every time he left and entered the cell, which in practice meant that he had to strip naked in front of prison officers and was required to bend over to allow his anus to be examined. Whenever he was outside his cell, including at court hearings, the applicant had to wear joined shackles (kajdanki zespolone) on his hands and feet. The shackles consisted of handcuffs and fetters joined together with chains.
4.  At the material time all the applicants were detained in Russian penal facilities. Where relevant, the dates of their detention are listed in Annex I.
5.  While in detention, the applicants Mr Yevdokimov, Mr Rezanov, and Mr Morozov lodged defamation claims against private third parties; the applicants Mr Makhov, Mr Resin, Mr Anikanov, Mr Lebetskiy, Mr Gromovoy, Mr Gordeyev and Mr Vinokhodov brought claims seeking compensation for the allegedly inhuman conditions of their detention; and the applicant Mr Martirosyan lodged a civil claim for compensation, alleging that the criminal proceedings had been instituted unlawfully.
6.  None of the applicants were able to attend the hearings at which their claims were examined. The domestic courts refused them the possibility to be present at the hearing, on the ground that there was no domestic legal provision for bringing detainees to courts. In particular, they quoted Article 77.1 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences (see paragraph 11 below) and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the other cases, the issue of the applicants’ presence in court was not addressed.
7.  The applicants appealed, raising the question of their appearance in court in the appeal statement. Some submitted a separate request seeking leave to appear before the appeal court. The appeal courts either dismissed the applicants’ arguments or concluded that their absence from the court was in line with the legislation and did not contravene the principle of fairness.
8.  The applicants’ claims were refused at two levels of jurisdiction. The dates of the final judgments are set out in Annex I.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Izhevsk.
5.  On 27 August 2008 the police arrested the applicant in the street on suspicion of being drunk. He was taken to the police station where he was held for more than two hours. The police charged the applicant with public drunkenness and told him to pay a fine.
6.  Further to a complaint by the applicant, on 8 December 2008 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Izhevsk quashed the police decision, finding that the charge had not been supported by evidence.
7.  The applicant brought a claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in connection with his arrest and detention.
8.  By a judgment of 16 November 2009, the Pervomayskiy District Court dismissed his claim. Noting that the claim arising out of administrative detention fell outside the exhaustive list of examples of strict liability under Article 1100 of the Civil Code, the court held that the lawful actions of the police officers could not give rise to liability in tort. It acknowledged that the applicant must have suffered frustration and anxiety as a result of his detention, but determined that his suffering had been “of no legal consequence”.
9.  On 3 March 2010 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic upheld the District Court’s decision on appeal.
5.  The applicants were employed by HK Komgrap ad Komgrap-Makiš doo, a company based in Belgrade (hereinafter “the debtor”). At the relevant time, the company was predominantly socially-owned.
6.  Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations towards its employees, the applicants brought a civil claim seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.
7.  On 23 June 2003 the Belgrade Second Municipal Court (Drugi opštinski sud u Beogradu) ordered the debtor to pay to the applicants certain sums in respect of salary arrears and various social security contributions. This judgment became final and enforceable on 25 July 2005.
8.  On 26 September 2005 the applicants applied to the Belgrade Fourth Municipal Court (Četvrti opštinski sud u Beogradu) for enforcement of the judgment of 23 June 2003.
9.  On 18 January 2006 the said court ordered the enforcement of the judgment and awarded the applicants the costs incurred in the enforcement proceedings.
10.  The Government maintained that the debtor had been sold in 2007 to a private company.
11.  The applicants disagreed and claimed that it was, in fact, a different company that had been privatised in 2007.
12.  The Government submitted that bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted in respect of the debtor on 22 July 2010 and had been terminated on 10 June 2013.
13.  The applicants disagreed and claimed that it was, in fact, a different company that went into bankruptcy in 2013.
14.  In their additional observations the Government submitted that bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted in respect of the debtor on 24 July 2013 and had been terminated on 8 November 2013 when the decision to institute bankruptcy proceedings had been quashed.
15.  On 27 October 2010 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal, seeking redress for the non-enforcement of the judgment in question.
16.  On 27 November 2013 the Constitutional Court held that the applicants had suffered a breach of the “right to a trial within a reasonable time” with regard to the enforcement proceedings. The court, however, did not award them compensation for non-pecuniary damage, finding that only the period after the applicants had continued the enforcement proceedings following the death of their relatives (on 9 July 2013 and 15 May 2013, respectively) could be taken into account.
17.  On 27 November 2013 the Constitutional Court held that the applicants had suffered a breach of the “right to a trial within a reasonable time” with regard to the enforcement proceedings. The court ordered the acceleration of the proceedings and declared that the applicants were entitled to compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered in the amount of EUR 800 each, converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
18.  The Constitutional Court held that since the enforcement proceedings in question had not yet been completed, the constitutional appeals were premature in so far as they concerned pecuniary damage, and dismissed the appeals in that regard.
5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Murmansk.
6.  The applicant sued the local office of the Pension Fund, claiming that her monthly pension had been miscalculated.
7.  On 12 September 2003 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Murmansk granted her claim and ordered that the pension due to the applicant be recalculated and increased. No appeal was lodged against that judgment and on 23 September 2003 it became final and enforceable.
8.  On 11 August 2005 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Murmansk quashed the judgment of 12 September 2003 and reopened the proceedings after an application by the respondent authority on the grounds that new circumstances had come to light.
9.  On 23 August 2005 the same court rejected the applicant’s pension recalculation claim.
5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Chisinau.
6.  At the time of the events in question, the applicant was a high-ranking police officer. On 26 March 2008 he was arrested on suspicion of being part of a criminal gang specialised in the smuggling of heroin through Moldova to the European Union. His arrest took place as a result of the seizure of a large quantity of heroin in Chişinău. He was indicted with the offence of circulating large quantities of narcotics, an offence provided for in Article 217/1 of the Criminal Code and punishable with seven to twenty years of imprisonment.
7.  On 5 September 2008 the criminal investigation into the circumstances of the case was completed and the case was referred to a trial court for determination.
8.  On 21 October 2009 the applicant was found guilty of having committed other offences than that for which he had been put in detention on remand and sentenced to five years and nine months’ imprisonment. The offences of which the applicant was found guilty concerned negligence, abuse of power and aiding and abetting in the commission of an offence. On 21 June 2010 the judgment was set aside by the Chisinau Court of Appeal and the applicant was released from detention. The proceedings are still pending.
9.  Between his arrest and his sentencing the applicant was detained on remand. A detention warrant was issued every month and the reasons given for prolonging his detention were the same throughout the entire period: the applicant had been accused of a serious criminal offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment and there was a risk he might abscond or hinder the investigation. All of the applicant’s habeas corpus requests were dismissed.
10.  The applicant was detained in two detention facilities. Between his arrest and 17 November 2008 he was detained in solitary confinement at the detention facility of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC) and between 17 November 2008 and 21 June 2010 he was held in Prison no. 13. According to the applicant, the conditions of detention in Prison no. 13 were tantamount to inhuman and degrading treatment. In particular, the cells were dirty and overcrowded. In the cell in which the applicant was detained, each inmate had only 2.5 square metres of available space. The food was of a very poor quality, the inmates smoked, and he was held along with detainees convicted of violent crimes who threatened him with violence on account of his status as a police officer. The inmates were not provided with bed linen and the cell was infected with vermin.
11.  During his detention the applicant’s state of health deteriorated and a panel of doctors diagnosed him with gastritis, duodenitis, pancreatitis, hepatitis and hypertension. They recommended he be hospitalised for in-patient treatment. The applicant was hospitalised between 7 October and 17 November 2008 in a prison hospital belonging to the Ministry of Justice but he refused treatment, asking instead to be treated in a military hospital accredited by the Ministry of Healthcare. His request was rejected on grounds which were not communicated to the Court by the parties.
4.  Mr Gerardo Menéndez García (“the first applicant”) was born in 1964 and lives in Gargantada (Langreo). Mr Sigifredo Álvarez González (“the second applicant”) was born in 1956 and lives in Sant Jordi de Cercs (Barcelona).
5.  On 2000 the applicants acted as intermediary (purchase agent) in the sale of three cars, sold to a company. As a result of this sale, on 20 November 2000 criminal investigations were instituted by the Gijón no. 1 investigating judge against the applicants and other eight suspects for fraud and forgery of documents.
6.  On 16 April 2001 and 18 April 2001, respectively, the applicants were detained, charged with document forgery and informed about the rights they were entitled as detainees. They were subsequently interrogated by the Guardia Civil in the presence of their lawyer.
7.  On 8 November 2004 the Judge issued a decision (auto) ordering the initiation of oral proceedings (apertura de juicio oral) and set the complete file to the Asturias Audiencia Provincial.
8.  On 6 May 2009 the hearings before the Asturias Audiencia Provincial took place.
9.  On 5 June 2009 the Asturias Audiencia Provincial sentenced the first applicant to a three years and six months’ imprisonment, and the second applicant to a five years’ imprisonment for fraud and document forgery. The Asturias Audiencia Provincial refused the applicants’ request to reduce the sentence in view of the undue delay of proceedings, as prescribed in Article 21 of the Criminal Code. The Asturias Audiencia Provincial acknowledged that the proceedings had been “unusually” long, but this was due to the complexity of the case, namely the difficulties in gathering evidences within different jurisdictions, the great number of parties involved, the difficulty faced when trying to notify some of the defendants, as well as the applicants’ conduct, whose lawyers had lacked celerity in presenting their submissions.
10.  The applicants lodged a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court. On 27 May 2010 the Supreme Court partially ruled in favour of the applicants and sentenced them both to three years and eight months’ imprisonment for fraud. However, the Supreme Court rejected the claims of undue delay of proceedings. The Supreme Court considered that even though the proceedings might have appeared excessively long, the Asturias Audiencia Provincial had provided a sounded and detailed justification for the duration of the proceedings.
11.  Both applicants lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court complaining, inter alia, about the undue length of the proceedings.
12.  By two decisions of 20 May 2011 and 12 September 2011, respectively (served on 25 May 2011 and 23 September 2011), the Constitutional Court declared both appeals inadmissible on the grounds that they lacked the constitutional relevance provided for in Article 50 § 1 b) of the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court.
4.  The applicant is a limited liability company registered under Hungarian law, with its seat in Budapest.
5.  On 24 November 1998 the applicant initiated a civil lawsuit against two companies requesting the court to declare invalid a real estate sale and purchase agreement concluded between these two companies.
6.  The Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on 26 February 2004. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed the judgment on 5 November 2004.
7.  The first-instance court re-heard the case and dismissed the applicant’s claim on 13 October 2005. On appeal, the second-instance court upheld the judgment on 9 November 2006. The applicant challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court which quashed it on 13 September 2007.
8.  In the resumed proceedings the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed, on 20 March 2008, the first-instance court’s judgment.
9.  On 18 March 2009 the Budapest Regional Court as first‑instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on 17 December 2009. The applicant challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court but to no avail. The Supreme Court upheld the final and binding judgment on 13 September 2010 (served on 27 October 2010).
5.  Between 2005 and 2006 the applicants successfully sued the authorities for miscalculating social benefits. The judgments became final.
6.  On various dates the supervisory review courts quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour after applications by the defendant authorities, considering that the lower courts had misapplied substantive or procedural law (for more details see the Appendix).
7.  On 3 July 1986 the applicant was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment. On 25 February 1997 he was acquitted.
8.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application with the Sovetskiy District Court, claiming 3,973,578 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on the grounds of wrongful prosecution.
9.  On 24 May 1999 the Sovetskiy District Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part, awarding him RUB 43,568 in compensation for unpaid salary, the confiscation of his car, and judicial costs and expenses. The judgment was fully enforced.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a similar set of proceedings against the Ministry of Finance, claiming compensation for wrongful prosecution in 1997.
11.  On 27 July 2006 the Leninskiy District Court granted the applicant’s claim in full and awarded him RUB 761,815 in compensation for unpaid salary; the confiscation of his car and other property; rent for his flat; travel expenses; and judicial costs and expenses. No appeal against the judgment was lodged and it became final.
12.  On 1 February 2007 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed that judgment by way of supervisory review on the grounds that the same issue had already been decided by the judgment of 24 May 1999 and that there had been no grounds to examine the complaint a second time.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Burgas.
6.  At about 6 a.m. on 11 July 2007 several police officers visited the applicant’s home with a summons for him to report to the police station in the neighbouring town of Pomorie “as a witness” in relation to an investigation. The applicant alleged that he was not at home at the time and that he was alerted by phone by his wife. On the summons, on the other hand, it is noted that he refused to accept receipt.
7.  At about 7 a.m. the applicant arrived at the Pomorie police station. He was notified that he was being detained under section 63(1)(1) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act (“the MIAA”, see paragraph 15 below). The detention order stated that he was being detained on the basis of section 63(1)(1) “in connection with an offence under Article 195 of the Criminal Code”, which refers to theft.
8.  During his detention, the applicant was transported to a police station in Burgas and then back to the police station in Pomorie, where his fingerprints were taken. He was not interviewed, and no further investigative steps involving his participation were taken.
9.  At about 12 a.m. the applicant was allowed to meet with a lawyer retained by his wife, who insisted that the police release him. The applicant was released shortly after that, at 1.30 p.m. on 11 July 2007.
10.  Immediately after his release the applicant applied for judicial review of the detention order. In the framework of the ensuing proceedings the police presented an order dated 10 July 2007 and signed by a police investigator in Pomorie. They stated that the case file concerning the applicant contained no further documents. The order stated that a theft had been committed by an unknown person in a hotel in Pomorie and instructed the police to take the appropriate measures to search for the perpetrator.
11.  The Burgas Administrative Court heard the case on 28 November 2007. It accepted the order mentioned in the preceding paragraph as evidence.
12.  In a judgment of 21 December 2007 it upheld the detention order, holding that the applicant’s detention had been in accordance with the law. It found, in particular, that for the lawful application of section 63(1)(1) of the MIAA it was not necessary that the police should hold evidence showing “in an unqualified manner” that the detainee had committed an offence; data “justifying a suspicion that there was a probability that the person had committed an offence” was sufficient. The domestic court noted further that the police had operational freedom as to the application of section 63(1)(1) of the MIAA.
13.  On appeal by the applicant, on 17 November 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Burgas Administrative Court, reiterating its reasoning.