coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant, Mr Vladimir Nikolayevich Ruban, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a life sentence.
6.  On 13 August 1996 the Voznesensk local prosecutor’s office in the Mykolayiv region started an investigation into the murder of four persons on 12 August 1996.
7.  On 18 October 1999 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office started investigating the murder of A.
8.  On 10 November 1999 the Slavyansk Police Department of the Donetsk region started an investigation into hooliganism concerning R.
9.  On 22 November 1999 the above three investigations were joined. Several persons were suspected of committing the above crimes as a group, one of them being the applicant.
10.  On 14 December 1999 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office formally charged the applicant in absentia with the above crimes. He was also placed on the list of wanted persons. The same day the investigation in respect of the applicant was suspended until he was apprehended; the criminal proceedings continued in respect of the other suspects.
11.  On 23 December 2002, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal convicted and sentenced G., P. and F. for the above mentioned crimes.
12.  On 2 February 2004 the Slavyansk Local Court ordered the applicant’s detention.
13.  On 28 June 2007 the applicant was apprehended by the Yartsevo Prosecutor’s Office in the Smolensk region, Russia.
14.  On 31 March 2008 the investigation was resumed after the applicant had been extradited to Ukraine. The same day the applicant was formally charged with participation in an organised criminal group together with G., P., F. and two other persons, who had died in the intervening time. The applicant was accused of strangling A., of killing four persons together with G. in 1996 and inflicting grievous bodily harm on R. in a murder attempt, the latter crime in the context of the extortion of R’s brother. All these crimes had been committed as a group.
15.  On 22 May 2008 the investigation was completed and on 26 June 2008 the case was transferred to the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal.
16.  On 10 July 2009 the Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court, found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and banditry and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
17.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed, considering that the applicant’s guilt had not been proved.
18.  On 15 July 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 10 July 2009. On that day the applicant’s lawyer submitted an additional appeal claiming that the Court of Appeal had to apply the most favourable wording of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, which was that between 29 December 1999 and 29 March 2000 when the death penalty had already been abolished and life imprisonment had not yet been introduced. The Supreme Court in its decision noted that the applicant had been sentenced correctly.
5.  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 stereotypical formulae, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures.
6.  The first applicant was born in 1982 and was detained in Irkutsk.
7.  On 23 December 2008 the first applicant, a police officer at the material time, was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. On an unspecified date he was formally charged with banditry, kidnapping, abuse of power, robbery (four counts), preparing to commit robbery, intentionally damaging another’s property, and stealing and damaging official documents. On 19 April 2010 he, along with thirteen co-defendants, was committed for trial before the Irkutsk Regional Court. On 7 November 2011 the Irkutsk Regional Court convicted him of abuse of power, and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and disqualification from holding public office for one year. He was released on parole.
8.  The second applicant was born in 1967 and was detained in Penza.
9.  On 14 February 2009 a criminal case was opened into an incident of fraud involving an apartment, which had caused damage in the amount of 440,000 Russian roubles (RUB). On 24 June 2009 the second applicant was arrested. On 8 June 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to eleven months’ imprisonment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Niš.
6.  On 28 April 2010 the applicant brought an enforcement action before the Smederevo Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud u Smederevu) against a socially/State-owned company “FŽV Želvoz a.d. Smederevo” (the debtor).
7.  On 15 December 2010 that court ordered direct enforcement of the outstanding invoice (izvršenje na osnovu verodostojne isprave).
8.  On 15 June 2011 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process.
9.  On 25 October 2011 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.
10.  On 3 November 2011 the applicant appealed the decision to stay the enforcement proceedings.
11.  On 10 February 2012 the applicant’s appeal was rejected by the enforcement court.
12.  On 21 March 2013 the applicant urged the court to continue the enforcement proceedings.
13.  On 7 June 2013 the court informed the applicant that the debtor was still undergoing restructuring and that therefore the enforcement proceedings could not be continued.
14.  It would appear that the applicant did not appeal against this decision.
15.  On 11 January 2010 the applicant brought an enforcement action before the Niš Commercial Court (Privredni sud u Nišu) against a socially/State-owned company “Vagonka a.d. Niš” (the debtor).
16.  On 29 January 2010 that court ordered direct enforcement of the outstanding invoice.
17.  On 4 November 2009 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process.
18.  On 4 February 2010 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.
19.  The applicant did not appeal against this decision which became final on 17 February 2010.
20.  On 20 March 2013 the applicant urged the court to continue the enforcement proceedings.
21.  On 22 March 2013 the court informed the applicant that the debtor was still undergoing restructuring and that therefore the enforcement proceedings could not be continued.
4.  At the material time all the applicants were detained in Russian penal facilities.
5.  While in detention, the applicants Mr Baban, Mr Barkov and Mr Bogatyrev sought compensation for inadequate conditions of their detention and substandard medical care; the applicants Mr Davydov, Mr Pflyaum and Mr Yakovlev were involved in contract disputes; Mr Fedchenko was the respondent in a divorce claim; Mr Starodubtsev challenged the decision by which he had lost the status of a disabled person; and Mr Shavayev was the defendant in an action for damages brought by the Federal Customs Service.
6.  None of the applicants, apart from Mr Yakovlev, were able to attend the hearings before the courts of first instance. The domestic courts refused the applicants leave to be present at the hearings, on the ground that there was no domestic legal provision for bringing detainees to courts. In some of the cases they quoted Article 77.1 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences (see paragraph 10 below) and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the other cases the issue of the applicants’ presence was left unaddressed. In the first-instance proceedings Mr Shavayev and Mr Starodubtsev were represented by their relatives. Mr Barkov and Mr Davydov were interviewed at courts located near the places of their detention.
7.  The applicants appealed, raising the question of their appearance in court in their appeal statements. Some submitted separate requests seeking leave to appear before the appeal court. The appeal courts either dismissed their arguments and endorsed the findings of the first-instance courts or concluded that their absence from court was in line with the legislation and did not contravene the principle of fairness. None of the applicants were present or represented at the appellate hearings.
8.  The dates of the final judgments are set out in Appendix I.
6.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1957 respectively and live in Sofia.
7.  On 19 February 1993 the applicants, at the time a married couple, bought a plot of land of 1,000 square metres in the village of Kranevo, on the Black Sea coast. The seller, Mr O., had acquired the property in 1967 from the agricultural co-operative that existed at the time, in exchange for another plot of land of his.
8.  The applicants’ possession of the land remained undisturbed until 2003, when other persons took possession of it. The applicants discovered then that the land had been collectivised after 1945 and that in 1991 the heirs of the pre-collectivisation owner, Mr K., had instituted restitution proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”, see paragraph 13 below). Their restitution request had been allowed in a court judgment of 7 December 1995 and in a decision issued by the competent administrative body ‒ the local agricultural land commission ‒ on 4 April 1996. Thereafter, the heirs of Mr K. had transferred the land to the persons who had later taken possession of the plot.
9.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicants brought a rei vindicatio action against these individuals.
10.  In a judgment of 25 May 2005 the Balchik District Court dismissed their claim. It relied on the provision of section 10(13) of the ALA (see paragraph 15 below), holding on its basis that of the two rival claims to the same land the law gave priority to the one based on restitution.
11.  Upon appeal, on 25 January 2007 the Dobrich Regional Court reversed that decision and allowed the applicants’ action. It considered in particular that section 10(13) of the ALA was not applicable to the case as it had only been introduced in 1997, that is to say after the restitution decision in favour of Mr K.’s heirs and after the applicants had bought the plot of land.
12.  Upon further appeal, in a final judgment of 12 December 2008, the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and dismissed the applicants’ rei vindicatio claim. It took the view that section 10(13) of the ALA, introduced in 1997, had to be considered to be applicable with effect from the ALA’s entry into force in 1991 because it was merely clarifying its general restitution provisions. As to the exception contained in section 18z(3) of the Regulations for the ALA’s implementation, also introduced in 1997 (see paragraph 16 below), the Supreme Court considered it inapplicable to the case; in its view, section 18z(3) only precluded the restitution of properties which had been the subject of transactions prior to the ALA’s entry into force in 1991, whereas the applicants had bought their plot in 1993.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Skopje.
6.  The applicant was employed by the State Intelligence Agency (Агенција за разузнавање, “the employer”).
7.  On 28 February 2001 she was dismissed from work as redundant given that internal regulations (Правилник за систематизација на работните места, “the Regulations”) of 27 February 2001 provided for reduced number of employees for posts such as the post held by the applicant.
8.  On 9 April 2001 the applicant challenged her dismissal before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”).
9.  After three remittal orders, on 29 November 2005 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that she had been dismissed on 28 February 2001 on the basis of the Regulations, which had been adopted by the employer and approved by the Government on 27 February 2001. It further found that the Government’s approval had been received by the employer on 2 March 2001, but that had been irrelevant given that it was only the date when approval had been given by the Government that was important for the entry into force of the Regulations.
10.  On 14 December 2005 the applicant appealed, arguing inter alia that the Regulations could not have applied to her case, as it could only be adopted after the employer had received the Government’s approval. The applicant relied on another final judgment of the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the appellate court”) in a similar case concerning a former colleague of the applicant, in which it had been established that the Regulations had not entered into force at the time of the dismissal (see paragraph 17 below). She contended that under the relevant law (see paragraph 16 below) the Regulations could only be adopted after the Government’s approval had been obtained.
11.  On 23 February 2006 the appellate court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found that the Government had approved the Regulations on 27 February 2001, that they had entered into force the same day, and that the applicant’s dismissal of 28 February 2001 was therefore lawful.
12.  On 7 April 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. In it she argued, inter alia, that the Regulations could only be adopted after the Government’s approval had been obtained, and that they had thus not entered into force at the time of her dismissal. She referred to the earlier judgment of the appellate court (see paragraph 17 below), and argued that it had deviated from its established practice on the matter without providing any reasons. She further contended that the dismissal of her former colleagues, which had been based on the same grounds, had been quashed and they had been reinstated to their posts.
13.  On 25 October 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It found that on 27 February 2001 the Government had approved the Regulations, which had thus entered into force the same day. On 15 January 2008 the applicant was served with the Supreme Court’s judgment.
4.  The applicant is a company limited by shares registered under Hungarian law. It has its seat in Budapest.
5.  On 31 May 2000 a property claim was brought against the applicant requesting it to pay mandate fees in the amount of 275 million Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 1,057,000 euros (EUR) at the time).
6.  On 6 June 2000 the Budapest Regional Court ordered the applicant, under section 187(1) of Act no. LIII of 1994 on Court Execution, to deposit on the bailiff’s trust account a security in the amount of HUF 275 million. The applicant appealed against the decision but this was to no avail. The money was deposited on the bailiff’s trust account on 27 March 2001.
7.  Under the law, such deposits yield no interest.
8.  The applicant requested to have the money released arguing that its financial situation was satisfactory, there was no need for such a deposit and that this measure contradicted the principle of economic rationality.
9.  The applicant’s request was dismissed on 8 May 2001. The Supreme Court as second-instance court upheld the decision on 8 November 2001. The applicant’s subsequent requests to have the money released, in exchange for other securities offered, were also turned down.
10.  After remittals on 27 November 2002 and 8 June 2007, on 16 October 2008 the Regional Court adopted a judgment, partly found for the plaintiff and ordered the applicant to pay HUF 137,280,000 (EUR 514,000 at the actual rate) plus interest accrued as of 6 January 2000. On 16 October 2009 and 29 April 2010, respectively, the Budapest Court of Appeal and the Kúria upheld this judgment.
11.  Although the plaintiff succeeded only partly in the litigation, the amount actually payable by the applicant exceeded the amount of the entire deposit. This outcome was the consequence of the fact that whilst the applicant was ordered to pay accrued interest on the money due to the plaintiff in the amount of approximately HUF 189,500,000 (EUR 700,000 at the actual rate), its own money deposited on the bailiff’s trust account had yielded no interest. Ultimately, the applicant had to surrender the whole deposit and pay about another HUF 90 million (EUR 330,000).
12.  The applicant challenged the impugned provisions of Act no. LIII of 1994 on Court Execution before the Constitutional Court; but its constitutional complaint was dismissed on 7 June 2011. This court held that ‘interest’ as such was consideration for the ‘use’ of another person’s money; however, the authorities had not in any way ‘used’ the deposited amount. Furthermore, the Constitution did not provide any safeguards against the depreciation of an asset, including a deposit of money subject to inflation, and that such depreciation for economical or other reasons did not amount to a deprivation of property.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972. He was detained at the Gaziantep Foreigners’ Removal Centre (“the Gaziantep Removal Centre”) at the time of the events giving rise to this application. His current address is unknown.
6.  In 2000 the applicant fled to Turkey because he was being searched for by the Russian authorities. It appears that shortly before his escape, he had lost his right leg in a bomb attack that struck a mosque in Chechnya.
7.  Subsequent to his departure from Russia, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant by the Russian authorities before the Cerkessk City Court on the following charges: (i) participation in an armed insurrection and membership of an armed organisation with the purpose of overthrowing the constitutional order and violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and (ii) possessing firearms and ammunition. It appears that the Cerkessk City Court issued a detention order in respect of the applicant in his absence.
8.  On 24 January 2008 the applicant was taken into police custody in Istanbul in the context of an operation against al-Qaeda. He was subsequently taken to Gaziantep, where he was placed in pre-trial detention at the Gaziantep H-Type Prison upon the order of the Gaziantep Magistrate’s Court.
9.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were commenced against the applicant before the Adana Assize Court.
10.  On 28 January 2009 the Adana Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release from the Gaziantep H-Type Prison. There is no further information in the case file as regards the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
11.  Following his release from prison on 28 January 2009, the applicant was placed in detention at the Gaziantep Removal Centre, which is attached to the Gaziantep Security Directorate.
12.  On an unspecified date the Russian authorities requested the extradition of the applicant. On 3 April 2009 the Gaziantep Assize Court refused that request, holding that the offences in question were of a political nature and that under international and national laws, alleged perpetrators of such offences could not be extradited.
13.  On 23 October 2009 the applicant applied to the Gaziantep governor’s office with a request for asylum. On 26 April 2010 the applicant was notified that his request had been rejected.
14.  In the meantime, on 8 April 2010 the applicant submitted a petition to the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”), where he requested to be released and to be granted a residence permit. The applicant’s requests were dismissed by the Ministry. The applicant’s objection to that decision was further dismissed by the Ministry on 10 June 2010.
15.  On 24 July 2010 the applicant was released from the Gaziantep Removal Centre, on the condition that he leave Turkey within fifteen days. It appears that the applicant left Turkey shortly after his release.
16.  According to the information in the case file, the applicant met with his lawyer a total of nine times between 3 March 2009 and 27 July 2010 during his detention at the Gaziantep Removal Centre.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  At the time of the events in question the applicant was the vice‑president of HAK-PAR (Hak ve Özgürlükler Partisi – the Rights and Freedoms Party).
6.  On 4 January 2004 the party held its first ordinary congress at a restaurant in Ankara, where the applicant was elected by the delegates to act as the meeting’s chairman.
7.  On 28 February 2005 a public prosecutor at the Ankara public prosecutor’s office filed an indictment with the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance against thirteen members of HAK-PAR, including the applicant, for acting in violation of section 81 (c) of Law no. 2820 during the congress on the grounds, inter alia, that there had been banners in Kurdish and that most of the speeches given by the delegates had been in Kurdish.
8.  The applicant acknowledged before the first-instance court that he had not intervened as the chairman when certain delegates had spoken in Kurdish. In this connection, he submitted that, as a founder member of HAK‑PAR, he believed that Kurdish should be used in all areas of life; that those who spoke Kurdish were speaking in their mother tongue; and that he believed that it was neither legal nor ethical for him to intervene to force people to speak in a language other than their mother tongue. He maintained that such speeches could not have constituted an offence, when taking into account laws that had been enacted in compliance with the conditions for membership of the European Union, and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this connection, the applicant also submitted that the relevant provisions of Law no. 2820 were contrary to the Constitution.
9.  On 7 December 2005 the first-instance court dismissed an application from the defendants to suspend the proceedings and transfer the case to the Constitutional Court for examination of the compatibility of the relevant provisions with the Constitution.
10.  On 14 February 2007 the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance convicted the applicant of the charges. In particular, the court considered that the applicant had, despite warnings from a government superintendent present at the congress, continued to allow certain delegates to give their speeches in Kurdish, in breach of section 81 (c) of Law no. 2820. The applicant was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.
11.  On 23 March 2011 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the latter had failed to give any consideration to whether the conditions for suspending the delivery of the judgment against the defendants, pursuant to Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had been met.
12.  On 6 December 2011 the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the other defendants be terminated, on the ground that the statutory time-limit prescribed under domestic law had expired.