coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow.
6.  On 1 February 1994 F. bought a 19.3 square metre flat at 22-2-68 Nagatinskaya Naberezhnaya, Moscow. On 23 July 1997 F. died intestate and without heirs. According to the Government, his flat was locked and sealed by the housing maintenance company.
7.  On an unspecified date N. brought a civil action seeking recognition as F.’s heir-at-law. The City of Moscow authorities took part in the proceedings as a respondent. On 8 February 2010 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow granted her claim and recognised her title to F.’s flat. The judgment came into force on 19 February 2010.
8.  On 14 May 2010 N. sold the flat to K. The transaction was registered by the Federal Registration Service.
9.  On 24 June 2010 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 8 February 2010 on appeal and dismissed N.’s claims.
10.  On 6 July 2010 K. sold the flat to the applicant. On 21 July 2010 the Federal Registration Service registered the sale agreement and the transfer of the title to the flat to the applicant.
11.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil action claiming that N. had been erroneously recognised as F.’s heir-at-law and that the City of Moscow should inherit his property instead.
12.  On 8 November 2012 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims. It ordered the transfer of title to the flat to the City and the requisition of the flat from the applicant. The court also considered that the applicant had not demonstrated due diligence when buying the flat from K. and could not be recognised as a bona fide purchaser.
13.  On 4 February 2013, following an appeal by the applicant, the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 8 November 2012.
14.  On 15 April 2015 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims against the applicant and ordered her eviction.
15.  According to the Government, the applicant has not been evicted and continues to reside in the flat.
16.  On 9 December 2013 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow granted a claim by the applicant for damages against K. and awarded her, inter alia, 4,060,006 Russian roubles (RUB). K. appealed.
17.  On 20 March 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 9 December 2013 on appeal.
18.  According to the Government, the bailiff failed to establish K.’s whereabouts or locate any of his assets. The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced. The enforcement proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.
5.  On 16 March 2001 a senior investigator of the Krasnoyarsk regional prosecutor’s office charged the applicant with large-scale trafficking in firearms and ammunition and issued a warrant for his arrest.
6.  On 3 June 2002 and in view of the additional charges brought against the applicant another arrest warrant was issued. This decision did not set a time-limit for the applicant’s detention and it has never been served on him.
7.  On 27 September 2003 the applicant was arrested in Monaco and on 29 April 2005 he was extradited to Russia. He was placed in remand prison IZ-77/4 in Moscow with a view to a subsequent transfer to Krasnoyarsk.
8.  Before his final admission to Krasnoyarsk prison, the applicant was held in several different remand prisons and repeatedly complained about his unlawful detention.
9.  On 11 May 2005 criminal proceedings against the applicant were resumed. On the same day the investigator from the Krasnoyarsk Prosecutor’s office initiated a request for extension of the applicant’s detention.
10.  On 31 May 2005 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention from 10 May 2005 until 17 August 2005 inclusive. The matter was heard in the presence of the investigator, the prosecutor ‒ who supported the application for extension ‒ and counsel Mr V., who left the issue of the applicant’s detention for determination by the court.
11.  On 8 June 2005 he arrived at Krasnoyarsk prison IZ-24/1.
12.  On 24 June 2005 the applicant filed a statement of appeal. He submitted in particular that his detention had been contrary to the requirements of the Russian Constitution and the new Code of Criminal Procedure, that the arrest warrants of 16 March 2001 and 3 June 2002 had never been served on him or his counsel, and that the detention hearing had been held in his absence.
13.  On 17 August 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld this detention order on appeal, in the presence of only the prosecutor.
14.  On 21 May 2007, after two rounds of proceedings, the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm and leadership of a criminal enterprise and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.
15.  On 19 February 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction.
16.  On 20 December 2006 he complained to the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Krasnoyarsk, which had territorial jurisdiction over the place of his detention, about unjustified delays in the criminal proceedings and a violation of the right to respect for his family life. He alleged that following his conviction on 9 February 2006, he had not been allowed to have any visits from his relatives.
17.  On 28 December 2006 the District Court declared his complaint inadmissible, finding that the matters complained of were outside the court’s jurisdiction. On 27 February 2007 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the inadmissibility decision at final instance.
18.  On 13 March 2007 the applicant had a meeting with his mother.
4.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Volgograd.
5.  On 26 October 2002 the applicant was arrested on a charge of murder. On 28 October 2002 the Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Volgograd authorised his pre-trial detention. The applicant remained in custody during the investigation and pending the trial.
6.  On 24 November 2003 the Volgograd Regional Court scheduled the trial of the applicant and seven other defendants for 24 December 2003. The court also ruled that the trial was to be held in camera.
7.  On 26 April 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder committed out of national hatred and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
8.  On 22 February 2006 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The court decided to hear the applicant’s case in his absence. His lawyer was present and made submissions to the court.
9.  On 30 August 2010 the applicant was released on parole.
10.  On 8 December 2010 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 22 February 2006 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
11.  On 1 February 2011 the Supreme Court held a new appeal hearing. The court found that the case had become time-barred under the statute of limitations and discharged the applicant from serving a prison sentence. The applicant’s lawyer was present and made submissions to the court. The applicant did not attend the hearing.
4.  The applicant, Mr Mokhammed Makhmud, is a Somali national, who was born in 1979 and currently lives in the United States of America.
5.  On an unspecified date the applicant arrived to Russia. He was granted refugee status by the Russian authorities and applied to the United States authorities for asylum.
6.  According to the Russian authorities, the applicant was involved in transportation of four illegal migrants from Russia to Finland.
7.  On 28 May 2012 the applicant was arrested and formally charged.
8.  On 31 May 2012 the Primorsk District Court of St Petersburg remanded the applicant in custody. The District Court noted that the applicant was a foreign national without a permanent place of residence in Russia and official employment and charged with a serious crime. The District Court also noted that his application for asylum was pending before the United States Consulate in Russia.
9.  On 1 June 2012 the applicant’s representative appealed.
10.  On 12 July 2012 the St Petersburg City Court quashed the detention order of 31 May 2012 on appeal and referred the matter back to the first-instance court.
11.  On 19 July 2012 the District Court, relying on the same grounds, ordered the applicant’s detention between 28 May and 28 July 2012. In doing so, the District Court considered that neither the applicant’s refugee status nor his permanent place of residence and dependent family members (wife and child) justified the application of an alternative preventive measure. Finally, it referred to the applicant’s intention stated at the hearing eventually to leave the Russian territory.
12.  On 20 July 2012 the applicant’s counsel appealed.
13.  On 3 September 2012 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the detention order on appeal.
14.  On 20 July 2012, the District Court, relying on the same grounds, extended the applicant’s detention.
15.  On 26 July 2012 the applicant appealed.
16.   On 13 September 2012 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the detention order on appeal.
17.  On 12 September 2012, the District Court, relying on the same grounds, extended the applicant’s detention until 14 October 2012.
18.  On 18 September 2012 the applicant appealed.
19.  On 13 December 2012 the St Petersburg City Court rejected the applicant’s counsel’s appeal.
20.  On 22 January 2013 the St. Petersburg City Court held a preparatory hearing and again extended the applicant’s detention for another six months.
21.  On 25 January 2013 the applicant appealed.
22.  On 14 March 2013 the St Petersburg Regional Court upheld the detention order.
23.  On 4 June 2013 the District Court, by a collective detention order in respect of both co-defendants, extended the applicant’s detention for another three months.
24.  On 13 June 2013 the applicant appealed.
25.  On 4 September 2013 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the detention order on appeal.
26.  On 26 September 2013 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 December 2013. The applicant was in detention pending trial at least until 2 January 2014.
27.  On 9 April 2014 the District Court found the applicant guilty and convicted him to two years’ imprisonment.
4.  The applicants were prosecuted in Russia for various crimes. They were arrested and detained while the crimes were investigated and pending trial. Their detention was ordered and extended by the courts. The detention orders were essentially based on the gravity of the charges, the primary grounds being the risk of the applicants’ absconding and interfering with the course of justice. The detention and extension orders used stereotyped formulae, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures.
5.  The first applicant was born on 27 April 1961 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Poronaysk, Sakhalin Region. He was arrested on 27 February 2003 on suspicion of sexual assault and was placed in detention. He remained in custody while the crime was investigated and pending trial. On 9 February 2007 the Poronayskiy Town Court of the Sakhalin Region convicted him of sexual assault and sentenced him to six years and nine months’ imprisonment. On 6 June 2007 the Sakhalin Regional Court upheld his conviction on appeal.
6.  The second applicant was born on 29 May 1971 and lived, prior to his conviction, in Samara. He was arrested on 13 March 2007 on suspicion of bribery. On 14 March 2007 he was released. On 29 March 2007 he was arrested again and placed in custody. He was released on 12 September 2007. On 20 May 2008 he was convicted of bribery and sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment.
7.  The third applicant was born on 14 October 1979 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Ulybino, Novosibirsk Region. He was arrested on 15 August 2007 on suspicion of drug dealing. He remained in custody while the crime was investigated and pending trial. On 3 February 2011 the Novosibirsk Regional Court convicted him of drug dealing and abuse of power, and sentenced him to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. On 18 October 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld his conviction on appeal.
8.  The fourth applicant was born on 29 November 1986 and lived, prior to his conviction, in Turukhansk, Krasnoyarsk Region. On 23 April 2010 he was arrested on suspicion of murder. On 24 April 2010 a court remanded him in custody. His detention was subsequently extended. On 17 October 2012 he was convicted of aggravated murder and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.
9.  On various dates the applicants’ complaints about lengthy pre-trial detention were communicated to the Government. The Government were asked to inform the Court of their position regarding a friendly settlement of the cases and any proposals they wished to make. The Government did not reply.
10.  On 27 August 2015 the Court invited the applicants to submit their claims for just satisfaction. The applicants did not reply.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Velika Reka.
6.  He was employed by Holding Kompanija “Komgrap” – DD “Komgrap gradnja”, a socially-owned company based in Belgrade (hereinafter “the debtor”).
7.  On 3 February 2006, the First Belgrade 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. This judgment became final on 31 July 2006.
8.  On 23 October 2006, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Fourth Belgrade Municipal Court accepted the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs.
9.  On 24 December 2010 the Belgrade Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 4372/2010).
10.  On 22 June 2011 the applicant submitted his respective claims.
11.  On 31 October 2010 the Belgrade Commercial Court dismissed these claims as out of time. The Commercial Appeals Court upheld that decision on 26 June 2012.
12.  The insolvency proceedings against the debtor are still ongoing.
13.  On 23 April 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
14.  The Constitutional Court dismissed his appeal on 14 July 2011.
15.  On 13 March 2012 the applicant lodged a new constitutional appeal.
16.  On 26 January 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed again his appeal. On 28 December 2012 that decision was delivered to the applicant.
5.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1943, respectively, and lived in Tambov.
6.  On 25 April 2007, the applicants’ son, P.Z., was charged with large‑scale fraud; his name was placed on the list of fugitives from justice.
7.  On 7 May 2007 the Basmannyy District Court in Moscow authorised a search of the applicant’s flat in Tambov with a view to locating P.Z. and removing accounting, legal and financial documents relating to the alleged fraud.
8.  The search was carried out three days later and a number of documents, communication devices and the applicants’ travel passports were removed.
9.  The applicants complained to a court about the investigator’s actions. They submitted, in particular, that there had been no legal basis for removing their identity documents.
10.  On 9 July 2007 the Basmannyy District Court rejected their complaints. It held that it was not competent to review the way in which the evidence in the criminal proceedings had been obtained, and that the applicants’ constitutional rights had not suffered any impairment.
11.  On 10 October 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s decision in a summary fashion, without addressing the applicants’ arguments.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 6 January 2000 the applicant brought an action against his parents before the Siófok District Court for dissolution of joint ownership of a real property.
6.  On 21 March 2000 the court suspended the proceedings pending the adjudication of a preliminary question in other proceedings. Upon termination of the other proceedings on 17 November 2005, the Siófok District Court continued hearing the case.
7.  On 25 August 2006 the court again suspended the proceedings pending the adjudication of a preliminary question in another related procedure. Upon termination of these proceedings on 30 August 2007, the Siófok District Court ordered continuation of the case on 17 November 2008.
8.  An agreement was reached between the parties which was acknowledged and incorporated into a judgment by the Siófok District Court on 5 May 2011.
4.  The applicants in the present cases are Russian nationals. Their names, years of birth and places of residence are tabulated below.
5.  The applicants sued different municipal companies, referred to in the Appendix as the “debtor companies”, in various unrelated sets of the court proceedings.
6.  The companies were incorporated as municipal unitary enterprises set up by decisions of local administrations and provided services tabulated below in the respective municipal districts in several regions of Russia. The companies had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to them by the administrations in order to carry out their statutory activities.
7.  On the dates tabulated below by decisions of the local authorities some of the assets allocated to the companies were transferred back to the administration.
8.  At a later point insolvency proceedings were opened in respect of the debtor companies. As a result, the companies were subsequently liquidated. The dates on which the insolvency started and ended are tabulated below.
9.  On the dates tabulated below domestic courts by separate judgments made pecuniary awards in the applicants’ favour, to be paid by the debtor companies. Particulars of each judgment are summarised in the appended table.
10.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the awards became enforceable.
11.  The final judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour have remained unenforced due to companies’ insolvency and subsequent liquidation. Several applicants’ subsequent court actions against authorities, including subsidiary liability claim, legal succession proceedings or claims for damages against the respective local administrations, as well as repetitive complaints to the bailiffs’ service or the prosecutor’s office in connection with pending criminal proceedings brought in 2006-07 with regard to the company’s insolvency (applications nos. 20018/07, 10313/08, 36611/08, 56499/09, 42111/10, 43017/10, and 61212/10) proved futile.
12.  On 20 November 2009 the applicant in application no. 10313/08 died. On 1 November 2010, his widow, Anishchenko Raisa Yakovlevna, expressed her willing to participate in the proceedings before the Court in her late husband’s stand.
6.  The first applicant, Mr T. P. was born in 1981 and is currently serving his prison term in Sátoraljaújhely.
7.  On 22 November 2006 the Nógrád County Regional Court convicted the first applicant of murder committed with special cruelty and abuse of firearms. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
8.  On 28 June 2007 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, adding that the murder had been committed for ‘villainous’ reasons, namely, the applicant was considered to have killed the victim in a particularly atrocious manner, so as to prevent her from reporting the initial abduction and stabbing and thereby to cover up a previous crime.
9.  On 14 February 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant’s petition for review.
10.  On 5 November 2013 the President of the Republic dismissed the applicant’s request for pardon, by which he sought commutation of his life sentence to twenty years fixed-term imprisonment as well as allowing the possibility of his release on parole.
11.  The second applicant, Mr A.T. was born in 1985 and is currently serving his prison term in Sátoraljaújhely.
12.  On 14 May 2010 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court convicted the second applicant of double murder and abuse of firearms. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
13.  On 9 November 2010 the Debrecen Court of Appeal upheld this judgment.
14.  On 13 September 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the second applicant’s petition for review.
15.  On 23 October 2014 the President of the Republic dismissed the applicant’s request for pardon, by which he sought commutation of his life sentence to twenty years fixed-term imprisonment as well as allowing the possibility of his release on parole.
4.  The applicants were born in 1950 and in 1949, respectively, and live in Matosinhos.
5.  On 16 March 2005 A.C. and M.L. instituted civil proceedings against the applicants and other four defendants before the Matosinhos Court seeking the payment of 11,843.48 euros (EUR) due to the alleged sale of a part of the plaintiffs’ property.
6.  On 29 March 2005 the applicants were summoned to challenge the action against them; which they did not. In the notification letter they were given notice that the lack of opposition would entail the confession of the facts pursuant to Article 484 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 11 below).
7.  Between 21 April 2005 and 24 May 2013 several procedural steps took place either by action of the plaintiffs, the remaining defendants or the Matosinhos Court. In particular: on 21 April 2005 the remaining defendants contested the action; on 3 November 2005 the plaintiffs submitted observations in reply; on 17 October 2007 the plaintiffs lodged a request seeking the intervention of I.T. in the proceedings, which was admitted by the Matosinhos Court on 29 May 2009; on 15 December 2010 the judge gave directions concerning the matters to be discussed at the hearing (despacho saneador); on 21 March 2012, following I.T.’s death, the Matosinhos Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of inheritance proceedings.
8.  On 24 May 2013 the applicants submitted a power of attorney and requested that the case-file be uploaded to the legal platform “CITIUS” for consultation.
9.  On 10 January 2014 the applicants requested the participation of an expert of their own choosing in the preparation of the expert report which had been sought by the plaintiffs. On an unknown date the other defendants in the proceedings lodged an opposition to the applicants’ request.
10.  On 16 October 2015 the Matosinhos Court adopted a judgment in which it ruled in favour of the applicants.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Tirana.
5.  By a final judgment of 21 June 1996 the Tepelenë District Court ordered the Tepelenë District Council (Këshilli i Rrethit) to pay the applicant 530,941 Albanian leks (ALL) as compensation for the nationalisation of her house by the State in 1967. The judgment became final on an unspecified date in 1996.
6.  On 15 July 1998 an enforcement writ was issued.
7.  By a final judgment of 25 April 2008 the Gjirokastër District Court ordered the Gjirokastër Regional Council (Këshilli i Qarkut) to pay the applicant ALL 1,237,336 as compensation for the delayed enforcement of the Tepelenë District Court decision of 21 June 1996. The judgment became final on 25 May 2008.
8.  On 27 June 2008 an enforcement writ was issued.
9.  From 1996 to 2009 the applicant had continuously addressed letters to the authorities for the enforcement of the final judgments. She also instituted enforcement proceedings before a bailiff.
10.  On 23 January 2009 the Constitutional Court acknowledged that there had been a breach of the fair trial as a result of the non-enforcement of the final judgments.
11.  On 8 December 2009 both judgments were enforced and the sums were paid to the applicant.