coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Iași.
6.  On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant brought proceedings against a third party, seeking the annulment of two sale/purchase agreements concerning an apartment.
7.  By a judgment of 25 January 2007 the Iaşi District Court, acting as a court of first instance, allowed the applicant’s action on the merits and declared the two contracts null and void. The third party appealed against the judgment.
8.  By a decision of 21 November 2007 the Iaşi County Court, sitting as a bench of two judges, allowed the third party’s appeal on the merits, quashed the judgment of 25 January 2007 and dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against that decision.
9.  By a final decision of 2 June 2008 the Iaşi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible, without commenting on the merits of the case. It held that, under Article 2811 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, judgments delivered by first-instance courts in respect of disputes where the subject matter of the litigation had been valued at less than one billion Romanian lei (RON) (approximately EUR 27,000) were not subject to an ordinary appeal. The applicant had estimated the value of the disputed property to be RON 9,000. Therefore, the judgment delivered by the District Court could only be challenged by way of an appeal on points of law. Moreover, the decision of the Iaşi County Court was final, even if the County Court had erred and examined the applicant’s case in a composition of two rather than three judges.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Vienna.
5.  The applicant was a public official working for the Vienna municipality (Magistrat der Stadt Wien). On 2 February 1996 the personnel office (Personalamt) of the Vienna municipality accepted the applicant’s resignation (Entsagung), and held that she was entitled to severance pay (Abfindung) amounting to three monthly salaries. On 18 March 1996 the same authority amended the aforementioned decision, stating that the applicant was not eligible for severance pay.
6.  The applicant appealed on 1 April 1996. On 3 September 1996 the Appeal Panel of the Vienna municipality (Berufungssenat der Stadt Wien) dismissed her appeal as unfounded.
7.  On 9 October 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint against the appeal decision with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). On 17 October 2001 the Administrative Court set aside the appeal decision of 3 September 1996 due to lack of jurisdiction of the personnel office of the Vienna municipality.
8.  On 13 June 2002 the applicant filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag), since the Appeal Panel had not rendered a fresh decision by then. However, on 7 August 2002, the Appeal Panel set aside the decision of 18 March 1996 and at the same time decided on the merits of the subject matter and stated that the applicant was not eligible for severance pay.
9.  On 19 September 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). On 30 November 2004 the Constitutional Court set aside the Appeal Panel’s decision on the merits due to lack of jurisdiction of the panel with regard to the subject matter.
10.  On 1 April 2005 the Vienna Municipal Council (Gemeinderat der Stadt Wien) rendered a decision declaring that the applicant was not eligible for severance pay.
11.  The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Constitutional Court on 17 May 2005. On 12 October 2005 the Constitutional Court declared that the applicant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to have proceedings determining her civil rights conducted within a reasonable time had been violated. However, it dismissed her request to set aside the decision of the Municipal Council and refused to deal with the remainder of the complaint. The Constitutional Court conceded that the proceedings had already had an overall duration of approximately nine years, which resulted entirely from the conduct of the authorities and courts involved. Furthermore, the subject matter of the proceedings was not particularly complex. However, setting aside the decision (preliminarily) concluding those overly long proceedings would not be capable of remedying the violation of the applicant’s rights; on the contrary, it would again delay the termination of the proceedings.
12.  On 16 December 2005 the applicant amended her complaint for the proceedings before the Administrative Court. On 13 March 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. That judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 3 April 2009.
5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Belgrade.
6.  The applicant was employed by “PIM – bagerovanje i vodni transport”, a socially-owned company based in Belgrade (“the debtor”).
7.  On 30 March 2005 the Belgrade Second Municipal Court (Drugi opštinski sud u Beogradu) ordered the debtor to pay the applicant specified sums in respect of salary arrears, social security contributions and procedural costs. This judgment became final on the same date.
8.  On 22 June 2005 the Belgrade Fourth Municipal Court (Četvrti opštinski sud u Beogradu) issued an enforcement order with regard to the said judgement.
9.  On 29 March 2012, acting upon the applicant’s constitutional appeal, the Constitutional Court held that the applicant 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 applicant was entitled to compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered in the amount of EUR 700, converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
10.  The enforcement proceedings instituted on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Belgrade Second Municipal Court on 30 March 2005 continued and are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Mingachevir.
5.  The applicant worked as the executive director at the “Mingachevir Technical Rubber” Joint Stock Company, which was an enterprise under the control of the Department for Privatization and Management of State Property (“the DPMSP”) of the Ministry of the Economic Development. On 15 March 2005 the applicant was dismissed from his job by an order of the DPMSP of the Ministry of the Economic Development.
6.  The applicant lodged an action against the DPMSP, seeking reinstatement in his previous job and payment of his unpaid salaries.
7.  On 25 August 2005 the Sabayil District Court granted the applicant’s claim, ordering his reinstatement in his previous job. The court also ordered the DPMSP to pay the applicant his unpaid salary for the period from 15 March 2005 (date of dismissal) until the date of his reinstatement, without specifying the due amount.
8.  On 25 November 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 25 August 2005, dismissing the DPMSP’s appeal. The judgment became enforceable immediately after its delivery. On 13 December 2005 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the DPMSP.
9.  On 12 April 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment and dismissed the cassation appeal lodged by the State Committee for Management of State Property (“the SCMSP”), which was the legal successor of the former DPMSP.
10.  It appears from the documents in the case file that in spite of the issuance of the writ of execution and numerous letters of the enforcement officers requesting the execution of the judgment, the SCMSP took no action to comply with the judgment in question.
11.  Following the SCMSP’s continuous failure to comply with the judgment, on 14 July 2006 the Sabayil District Court decided to refer the case to the Sabayil District Prosecutor’s Office for institution of criminal proceedings against the SCMSP’s responsible official for non-execution of an enforceable judgment. However, it transpires from the case file that on an unspecified date the prosecuting authorities returned the case to the enforcement officers without taking any formal decision as regards the institution of criminal proceedings.
12.  At the time of the latest communication with the parties in June 2011, the judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour remained unenforced.
6.  The applicants were born in 1952, 1947, 1973 and 1980 respectively and live in Bratislava.
7.  They are co-owners of a residential house located in the Bratislava-Staré Mesto municipality. The house was built in 1929 by their familial predecessors, who during the previous regime donated it to the State under circumstances that would later be accepted as constituting duress. The ownership of the house was restored to the first and second applicants on 10 December 1991 under special legislation on restitution. Consequently, each of them acquired a 4/12 share of the ownership of the house. The third and fourth applicants each acquired a 2/12 share of the ownership of the house on 25 January 1995 and 29 March 1999 respectively.
8.  At the time the applicants acquired the ownership of the house five flats were inhabited by tenants with regulated rent. Under the relevant legislation this meant that (i) the applicants had to accept that their flats were occupied by these tenants, (ii) they could charge them no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the State, (iii) they could not unilaterally terminate the leases, and (iv) they could not sell the flats other than to the tenants (“the rent-control scheme”).
9.  The rent-control scheme applies, or has applied, to the flats in question, as follows: a four-room flat with a surface area of 129 sq. m which had been subject to rent control until January 2006 (“the first flat”); a four-room flat with a surface area of 130 sq. m which had been subject to rent control until September 2008 (“the second flat”); a two-room flat with a surface area of 87 sq. m and two four-room flats measuring 126 sq. m each (“the third, fourth and fifth flats”), to which rent control still applies.
10.  The monthly rent chargeable for the flats under the applicable legislation was equivalent to some 10 to 17.5 euros (EUR) between 1992 and 1999. After several increases in the regulated rent, in June 2007 the applicants were able to charge some EUR 73.5 monthly in respect of the two-room flat and approximately EUR 125 monthly in respect of the four‑room flats. According to the Government’s calculations the regulated rent reached EUR 236 and EUR 400 respectively in 2014.
11.  The parties provided differing figures as to the market rent.
The applicants relied on data from the National Association of Real Estate Agencies (“the NAREA”) and claimed that the monthly market rent for comparable two‑room flats in the area reached around EUR 662 and for comparable four‑room flats some EUR 1,296 between 2004 and 2007.
The Government submitted an expert valuation according to which the monthly market rent for the applicants’ flats in 2010 amounted to EUR 561 and EUR 772 to EUR 797 respectively.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is currently detained in Chișinău.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 23 December 2013 the applicant was arrested and charged with embezzlement and organising the attempted murder of two businessmen. Since that date he has been detained in Prison no. 13.
7.  According to the applicant, he has been detained in a cell measuring 6 square metres with five other inmates, which left very little space for each detainee. Due to overcrowding, detainees had to share beds. He was not provided with bedding or a pillow. There was no sink or running water in the cell. The food was of poor quality and inedible. The squat toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell and gave off a foul odour. There was also a lack of daylight and poor ventilation.
8.  The applicant asserted that he had been detained with inmates diagnosed with tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. As a result of being held in inhuman conditions of detention, he had been ill with mycosis, gastritis and a respiratory infection. He was not provided with any medical assistance and was forbidden from receiving herbal medicine from his wife.
9.  The applicant complained of inhuman conditions of detention to the Chișinău prosecutor’s office and Court of Appeal. On 14 April 2014 the Prisons Department replied that after examining his allegations, it had not found any violation of domestic law.
10.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s cell (no. 130) measured 10 square metres and was designed to accommodate four people. All detainees had their own beds. The cell was equipped with a sink and running water. The applicant was provided with bedding, hygiene products tailored to his needs and hot food three times a day, in accordance with Government Decision no. 609 concerning the minimum daily food requirements for detainees. The Government contended that the cell in question had not accommodated people with infectious diseases. They added that the applicant had been provided with medical assistance and submitted evidence of various medical check-ups.
11.  The Court refers to the relevant material cited in its previous case‑law concerning the Republic of Moldova (see, for instance, Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 11353/06, §§ 50-61, 15 September 2015).
12.  In its reports for 2013, 2014 and 2015 on conditions of detention following several visits undertaken in Chișinău Prison no. 13, the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova (“the Human Rights Centre”, which also acts as the Moldovan Ombudsman) found serious problems, notably concerning overcrowding, food quality, ventilation and access to daylight. In view of its findings, it recommended in its reports for 2014 and 2015 that Prison no. 13 be closed or if that was not possible, that the conditions of detention there be urgently improved.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Leonding.
5.  On 10 July 2001 the applicant applied to the Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) of Upper Austria (Oberösterreich) for the granting of a licence to run a pharmacy in Leonding. On 25 September 2002 the Governor dismissed the application.
6.  On 14 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Federal Minister for Health and Women (Bundesministerin für Gesundheit und Frauen, “the Minister”). On 14 June 2004 he filed a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) against the Minister’s failure to give a decision (Säumnisbeschwerde). On 30 September 2004 the Administrative Court set a time-limit of 31 March 2005 for the Minister to make a decision.
7.  On 24 March 2005 the Minister dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
8.  On 11 May 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against that decision. On 12 October 2005 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint and, upon the applicant’s request, referred the case to the Administrative Court.
9.  Already on 22 April 2005 the applicant lodged a request for re‑opening of the proceedings with the Minister, who allowed the request on 10 May 2005.
10.  Thereupon, a number of owners of other pharmacies in the area, who had been parties to the administrative proceedings, lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court challenging the Minister’s decision. While the complaints against the Minister’s decision of 24 March 2005 and concerning the re-opening decision of 10 May 2005 were still pending before the Administrative Court, the Minister granted the applicant a licence to run a pharmacy on 5 December 2005.
11.  The applicant challenged parts of the Minister’s decision before the Constitutional Court, which dismissed his complaint on 27 February 2007. A request to transfer his complaint to the Administrative Court was dismissed.
12.  On 16 July 2009 the Administrative Court, dealing with the complaints of the first and the second sets of proceedings at the same time, decided that neither of the Minister’s decisions of 24 March and 10 May 2005 had been lawful, and quashed them. As a consequence, the Administrative Court also had to quash the Minister’s decision of 5 December 2005. The proceedings were thus referred back to the Minister.
13.  On 19 March 2010 the Minister granted the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Regional Governor of Upper Austria of 25 September 2002. The applicant was granted a licence to establish and run a new public pharmacy in Leonding.
14.  The complaint against that decision raised by the owners of an existing pharmacy was dismissed by the Administrative Court on 28 May 2013 and the applicant was awarded compensation for costs in the amount of 1,106.40 euros (EUR).
6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Zvolen.
7.  In 1929 the applicant’s grandfather built a house in Piešťany. His predecessors retained ownership under the communist regime. Ownership was transferred to the applicant from his mother on 21 December 1998.
8.  The house comprises four flats. Two have a surface area of 108 sq. m each in size, while the other two measure 123 sq. m each.
9.  At the time the application was lodged, the flats were inhabited by tenants with a regulated rent. Their or their predecessors’ right to use the flats had been established by decisions taken by the municipal authorities between 1953 and 1986. After 1 January 1992 their right of use had been transformed into tenancies with regulated rent for an indefinite period.
10.  Under the relevant legislation, the applicant had to accept that his flats were occupied by those tenants and that he could charge them no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the State (“the rent-control scheme”). The applicant had no possibility of unilaterally terminating the leases on his flats.
11.  Under the applicable legislation, the maximum monthly rent chargeable for the flats in 1999 was the equivalent of some 13 to 33 euros (EUR). After several increases in the regulated rent, in 2004 the applicant was able to charge EUR 115 monthly in respect of each of the smaller flats and EUR 124 monthly in respect of the larger ones.
12.  The applicant contended that he, in fact, received from the tenants less than the maximum amount of rent set by the applicable legislation. To this end he led several property disputes with them and the local municipality.
13.  The parties provided differing figures as to the market rent.
The applicant relied on data from the National Association of Real Estate Agencies (“the NAREA”) and claimed that the monthly market rent for similar flats reached EUR 600 to 800 between 2004 and 2007.
The Government submitted an expert valuation according to which the monthly market rent for the applicant’s flats in 2010 amounted to EUR 265.50 and EUR 325 respectively.
14.  In submissions made on 16 June 2014 the applicant informed the Court that the rent control in respect of his four flats had been terminated. The first flat had been subject to rent control until May 2007, the second and third flats until August 2007, and the fourth flat until April 2008.
6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava.
7.  The applicant’s parents built a house in Bratislava-Ružinov in 1937. In the second half of the 1950s they were compelled to donate the house to the State. On 31 July 1992 it was restored to the applicant’s mother (a three-quarters share) and the applicant (a one-quarter share) under the special legislation on restitution. Since 30 September 1996 the applicant has been its sole owner.
8.  At the time of its restitution to the applicant and his mother, the house comprised nine flats subject to rent control. One flat has a surface area of 30 sq. m and the remaining eight measure 70 sq. m each. Under the relevant legislation (i) the applicant had to accept that his flats were occupied by the tenants, (ii) he could charge them no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the State, (iii) he could not unilaterally terminate the leases, and (iv) he could not sell the flats to anyone other than the tenants (“the rent-control scheme”).
9.  In 1996 and 2000 two of the bigger flats became vacant, as a result of which the rent‑control scheme ceased to apply to them. The rent control ceased to apply in respect of another two 70 sq. m flats in January 2008 and November 2012 respectively. Currently, five flats are under the rent control regime.
10.  Under the applicable legislation, between 1992 and 1999 the maximum permissible monthly rent chargeable for the flats was equivalent of some 3 to 8 euros (EUR). After several increases in the regulated rent, in 2007 the applicant could charge some EUR 35 for the smaller flat and EUR 65 for each of the larger ones.
11.  The parties provided differing figures as to the market rent:
The applicant relied on data from the National Association of Real Estate Agencies (“NAREA”) and claimed that in 2007 the monthly market rent for similar flats with a surface area of 70 sq. m reached EUR 553 and for flats measuring 30 sq. m some EUR 375.
The Government submitted an expert valuation according to which the monthly market rent for the applicant’s flats in 2010 amounted to EUR 330 and EUR 160.50 respectively.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Chita.
5.  On 2 September 2004 the applicant was arrested on the charges of fraud and forgery of official documents. On 4 September 2004 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court reasoned as follows:
“The evidence collected ... incriminated [the applicant] ... in a serious crime which entails a custodial sentence exceeding ten years. ... The court takes note of the [applicant’s] character. However, ... it considers that, if at large, [the applicant] might put pressure on victims and witnesses or otherwise interfere with administration of justice or continue criminal activities, Accordingly, ... the court considers it necessary to remand [the applicant] in custody.”
6.  On 11 November 2004 the Chita Regional Court upheld the decision of 2 September 2004 on appeal.
7.  The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial. The court extended his pre-trial detention on several occasions reiterating, in substance, the reasoning employed by the District Court on 2 September 2004.
8.  On 4 June 2007 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.