coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  In 1961 the applicants’ predecessors were deprived of certain land in favour of the State.
6.  On 26 January 2006 the Niš Municipal Court ordered PIK Niš (the debtor), a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital, as the end user of that land, to pay the applicants specified amounts on account of the compensation for the land in question.
7.  On 25 October 2006 and 1 February 2007 respectively, upon the applicants’ request to that effect, the Niš Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicants the enforcement costs. This judgment became both, final and enforceable by 16 August 2006.
8.  Only one applicant, Mr Tomislav Đorđević, never lodged an enforcement request.
9.  On 3 June 2009 the Niš Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 10/09).
10.  Only one applicant, Ms Milica Nikolić Jajčević, duly submitted her claims therein.
11.  These insolvency proceedings are still ongoing.
12.  On 2 March 2009, 31 August 2009 and 9 June 2010 respectively, all applicants lodged their constitutional appeals.
13.  On 17 March 2011, 4 April 2012 and 23 May 2012, respectively, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in respect of all applicants, except Mr Tomislav Đorđević. However, the court did not award the applicants any damages, merely stating that the applicants “had not claimed non-pecuniary damages”.
14.  The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal in respect of one applicant, Mr Tomislav Đorđević, since he had failed to request enforcement of the judgment in question.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and is detained in Baku.
6.  On 9 June 2008 the Assize Court (Ağır Cinayətlər Məhkəməsi – hereinafter “the Assize Court”), sitting as a court of first instance for serious offences, convicted the applicant and his wife of fraud. The applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property, and his wife to seven years’ imprisonment, suspended for five years on probation.
7.  On 23 January 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal (Bakı Apellyasiya Məhkəməsi – hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”) overturned the judgment of 9 June 2008, reducing the applicant’s term of imprisonment to seven years and lifting the confiscation of property sanction.
8.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Ali Məhkəmə – hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). The prosecutor lodged a cassation protest in respect of the judgment of 23 January 2009 with the Supreme Court, requesting that it be set aside and the case remitted to the Court of Appeal.
9.  The Supreme Court scheduled the first hearing for 10 June 2009 but adjourned the proceedings until 24 June 2009 at the request of the applicant’s lawyer who pleaded that he had not enough time to familiarise himself with the case-file and collect further evidence.
10.  At the hearing of 24 June 2009 the applicant’s lawyer requested another adjournment referring to health problems and lack of time for familiarisation with the case-file. The Supreme Court scheduled the next hearing for 1 July 2009. According to the minutes of the hearing of 24 June 2009 provided by the Government, the applicant’s lawyer was present when the court declared that his request had been granted and that the proceedings were adjourned until 1 July 2009.
11.  On 1 July 2009, having examined the case in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer but in the presence of the prosecutor, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and accepted the prosecutor’s application for supervisory review in part. The prosecutor made oral submissions during the hearing, seeking the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal.
12.  The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment as regards the applicant’s conviction, but quashed his wife’s conviction, remitting that part of the case to the Court of Appeal for fresh examination. The Supreme Court found that proof of the applicant’s guilt had been duly established during the trial in the first-instance court and the Court of Appeal and that his actions had been properly classified under criminal law. Citing Article 419.4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court’s decision stated that the examination of the case was possible in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer given that the lawyer had failed to appear despite having been duly notified and the applicant, who was serving his prison sentence, had made no request to attend.
5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic. He is a musician and a jazz critic.
6.  On 31 December 2007 the applicant published an article on his personal website about a local jazz festival and its president, Mr Y. The article contained a detailed description of the event and scathing criticism of Mr Y. Using various derivatives of Mr Y.’s surname, the article mocked his professional qualities. The jazz festival was described as being “a shoddy piece of work” and Mr Y.’s delivery “crappy”.
7.  Mr Y. sued the applicant in defamation, arguing that the article was insulting and harmful to his reputation.
8.  On 14 August 2008 the Syktyvkar Town Court found the applicant liable in defamation. The judgment consisted of the text of the article, a summary of the relevant domestic law, a two-page reproduction of the extracts from the article which had been mentioned in the statement of claim and two paragraphs of conclusions. They stated:
“Using a distorted form of the plaintiff’s patronymic and last name ... breaches the plaintiff’s right to a name and to a good name, which is unacceptable under the law. Since the defendant committed a breach of the plaintiff’s intangible assets by way of distorting his patronymic and last name in a negative way, the latter shall have the right to compensation in accordance with Article 152 of the Civil Code.
[The contested extracts] undermine the honour and dignity of the plaintiff as a person, pedagogue and musician because they contain negative information about the plaintiff presented in an affirmative form. Pursuant to Article 152 § 1 of the Civil Code, the burden to prove the truth of the allegations is on the defendant, who did not submit any evidence to the court showing that the impugned statements were true.”
The Town Court awarded the plaintiff 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and directed the applicant to publish a retraction on his website.
9.  On 23 October 2008 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic dismissed an appeal by the applicant. It endorsed the findings of the lower court in a summary judgment. It held that Article 10 of the Convention had not been breached because “the defendant published statements on the Internet which undermined the honour and dignity of the plaintiff as a person, pedagogue and musician and which contained negative information about him”.
4.  The applicants were born in 1944, 1964 and 1966 respectively and live in Razgrad.
5.  The first applicant and H.P., her husband and father of the other two applicants, owned a house with a yard and garage in Razgrad.
6.  By a decision of the mayor of 28 June 1988 the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a residential building. The decision, based on section 98(1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство – “the TUPA”), provided that the first applicant and H.P. were to be compensated with a flat and a garage.
7.  By a supplementary decision of 24 July 1991, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor determined the exact location, size and other details in respect of the garage to be offered in compensation, which was to be located in a residential building which the municipality planned to construct. The first applicant and H.P. had to pay for the cost of the garage that was not covered by the value of their expropriated property 4,479 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). It appears that at the time they did not pay that sum, which has since then devalued significantly.
8.  On unspecified dates the flat due to be given to first applicant and H.P. was constructed and delivered to them. The expropriated house and garage were pulled down.
9.  In 1996 the mayor of Razgrad offered the first applicant and H.P. a garage in another part of the city. They refused the offer.
10.  The building where the garage offered to them was to be situated was never constructed. In 2006 the municipality authorised the construction of another building by a private investor in the same place, which did not include garages.
11.  In a letter dated 18 August 2006 the mayor advised the first applicant and H.P. that they could request financial compensation for their expropriated property in lieu of compensation with a garage. In reply, they stated that they did not want such compensation and insisted on receiving a garage.
12.  In February 2009 H.P. passed away and was succeeded by the three applicants.
13.  On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicants brought an action in tort, seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for the allegedly unlawful failure on the part of the Razgrad municipality to build and provide them with a garage. The action was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in a final judgment on 16 November 2011. It noted that the municipality had not acted unlawfully and had offered various solutions which the first applicant and her husband had rejected.
4.  The applicants were convicted in Russia of various crimes. The applicants and their lawyers, except for Mr Yakupov, whose lawyer was present, were refused leave to attend the appeal hearings on the ground that their presence was unnecessary or without addressing this issue at all.
5.  Following communication of the cases, the supervisory-review courts quashed the appeal judgments at the prosecutor’s request and remitted the cases for fresh examinations before the appellate courts. In most of the cases the applicants and their lawyers were present at the new appeal hearings. Mr Trifonov and Mr Sidelnikov did not ask for leave to appear and did not attend the new hearings, but they were represented by lawyers.
6.  Detailed information about the applicants’ attendance and dates of the hearings is set out in Appendix II.
7.  On 12 November 2002 criminal proceedings were initiated against Mr Zakhodyakin. Since then the criminal proceedings were suspended and reopened several times.
8.  On 26 June 2007 the Vuktyl Town Court of the Komi Republic found the applicant guilty of abuse of office and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. On 24 August 2007 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld that judgment on appeal.
9.  On 8 October 2008 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic quashed the judgment of 24 August 2007 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. On 7 November 2008 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the judgment of 26 June 2007.
10.  On 3 October 2012 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic quashed the judgment of 7 November 2008 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. On 18 December 2012 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the judgment of 26 June 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977. He has served sentences in several prisons. On 21 April 2015 he was released from Târgu-Jiu Prison.
5.  The applicant alleged that while detained in cell no. 5 of Târgu‑Jiu Prison for eight days, between 1 October and 9 October 2013, he had not had an individual bed and had therefore been forced to sleep on the cold floor on two blankets. As a consequence, the renal disease from which he suffered had been re-activated and he had experienced intense pain.
6.  On 3 October 2013 he had been examined by a prison doctor and had been prescribed medical treatment. However, he had been unable to submit any evidence in this connection as the prison authorities had rejected his requests for a copy of his medical records. He submitted instead an old medical certificate stating that on 23 September 2012 he had been hospitalised in the Nephrology Department of Slatina Hospital suffering from renal colic.
7.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the post‑sentencing judge asking for an individual bed.
8.  His complaint was examined on 15 October 2013. The applicant informed the judge that he had eventually been given a bed, but only after nine days. The post-sentencing judge took note that the applicant had obtained an individual bed; he did not draft an interlocutory judgment, but merely noted that the complaint had been withdrawn.
9.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Gorj District Court seeking compensation in connection with the lack of an individual bed for eight days in cell no. 5 of Târgu-Jiu Prison.
10.  On 12 November 2013 the Târgu-Jiu District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as inadmissible without examining its merits on account of the fact that the applicant had not submitted an interlocutory judgment by the post-sentencing judge in connection with his complaint.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Sharya, the Kostroma Region.
5.  The applicant was held in remand prison IZ-44/1 in Kostroma in the following cells:
Cell no.
Surface, sq. m
Dates of stay
29
6.  The parties disagreed on the design capacity of the cells and the actual number of inmates.
7.  The first applicant, relying on three hand-written statements from his co-detainees, submitted that Cell 49 had contained three two-tier bunk beds with metal sheets welded to beds on the upper and lower levels to create additional sleeping places. Cell 49 was used to accommodate between ten and twenty prisoners. Cell 43 contained two two-tier bunk beds and accommodated four prisoners.
8.  The Government submitted that the number of prisoners in the cells had not exceeded the occupancy limit. Cell 29 had three sleeping places, Cell 49 four places and Cell 43 two places. They submitted selected pages from the prison registration log. All of these pages, except one dated 24 July 2009, indicate that Cell 49 was designed for four persons and accommodated as many prisoners. The number “4” appears to be written over a different number that was erased. The entry of 24 July 2009 indicated that Cell 49 was designed for ten persons and accommodated eight prisoners. Similarly, the entries in respect of Cell 29 show traces of erasures and alterations. Its design capacity is listed as two or three places and the actual population is always three prisoners.
9.  The second applicant was born in 1958 and has been serving his term of imprisonment in Ivdel, the Sverdlovskiy Region.
10.  Between 14 July 2009 and 4 July 2010 the second applicant was held in remand prison IZ-59/1 in the Perm Region. According to him, the facility was overcrowded. In particular, Cell 90 measuring 40 sq. m accommodated up to sixteen inmates.
11.  According to the Government, the second applicant was held in cells 80, 90, 92, 98 and 103. The actual number of inmates detained in the cells did not exceed their designed capacity. Each inmate had more than 3 sq. m of personal space. Other conditions were satisfactory. The Government submitted selected pages from registration logs, some of which appears to contain erasures and alterations in the fields showing the number of inmates in Cell 90. On some pages the listed total number of inmates is ten less than the number produced by adding up the population of individual cells.
4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Kyiv.
5.  In 1995-2002 the applicant was convicted of and served a sentence for aggravated theft and burglary.
6.  On 27 December 2005 and 6 January 2006 the police found the applicant in possession of illegal drugs.
7.  On 20 January 2006 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of drug manufacturing and possession.
8.  On the same day criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and a certain Mr I. for armed robbery committed in a group.
9.  On 23 January 2006 the Kyiv Podilsky District Court (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand until 20 March 2006 on the grounds that he had previous convictions and there was a risk that he would abscond, continue his criminal activities or obstruct the investigation.
10.  On 16 March 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 April 2006, stating that there was no reason to change it and there was a need to carry out investigative actions.
11.  On 27 June 2006 the District Court held a preliminary hearing in the case and upheld the preventive measure imposed on the applicant without giving any reasons or setting a time-limit for it.
12.  On 17 March and 14 July 2008, and 19 January and 23 April 2009 the District Court refused the applicant’s requests for release.
13.  On 17 July 2009 the District Court convicted the applicant of drug possession and armed robbery committed in a group and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.
14.  On 27 July 2010 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration.
15.  On the same day the applicant was released against his undertaking not to abscond.
16.  On 30 September 2013 the District Court sent the case against the applicant to the prosecutor for further investigation.
17.  On 25 April 2014 the charges concerning the armed robbery were separated into a second set of criminal proceedings.
18.  On 29 April 2014 the bill of indictment for robbery was approved and on 3 June 2014 the District Court committed the applicant for trial on that charge.
19.  As at the date of the last communication from the parties to the Court, 5 March 2015, proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the District Court.
1.  The case originated in application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the date indicated in the appended table. 4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. 5.  The Court received friendly-settlement declarations under which the first applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Ukraine in respect of the facts giving rise to the part of the application concerning her complaints, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay her the amount detailed in the appended table. The payment will constitute the final resolution of this part of the application.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Nagykozár.
6.  The applicant had been working as a tax inspector. In 1996 he applied for early retirement on account of disability. As of 1 April 1996, he was declared to have lost 67% of his capacity to work and was granted a disability pension of 114,880 Hungarian forints (HUF) per month (approximately 370 euros (EUR) at the rate of January 2017). That disability assessment was maintained in 1999, 2003 and 2006.
7.  The relevant assessment methodology changed as of 1 January 2008. The applicant’s case was reviewed under the new rules in 2009. Without any significant change in his state of health having occurred, he was then found to have lost 50% of his working capacity. As a consequence, his disability pension was terminated and, as of 1 July 2009, he was declared suitable for institutional rehabilitation and granted a monthly rehabilitation allowance in the amount of HUF 152,820 (approximately EUR 490), minus payroll deductions. Under the relevant statute, the benefit could only be granted for a limited period, namely until 31 October 2011 in the applicant’s case. The law allowed for one extension of the time-limit, making the maximum deadline for the benefit 30 June 2012. However, under the law, the overall period allowable for rehabilitation could not exceed three years.
8.  The monthly amount payable evolved in the period preceding the deadline. On expiry, it was HUF 173,980 (approximately EUR 570) per month, minus HUF 17,398 in payroll deductions, resulting in a net sum of HUF 156,585 (approximately EUR 510).
9.  Meanwhile, on 29 December 2011 Act no. CXCI of 2011 on the Benefits Granted to Persons with Reduced Work Capacity was enacted. It came into effect on 1 January 2012 and introduced a new system of allowances.
10.  On 28 March 2012 the applicant applied for a disability allowance under the new law. On 8 May 2012 he was medically examined before an expert panel of the National Rehabilitation and Social Welfare Authority. The applicant’s state of health was rated at 46% and he was classified as being suitable for rehabilitation within a time-frame of thirty-six months. The authority initially granted him HUF 41,850 (approximately EUR 140) per month in disability allowance, as of 1 July 2012.
11.  On appeal, the applicant’s health score was maintained but the second-instance authority no longer recommended his rehabilitation. The monthly disability allowance corresponding to his situation was eventually set at HUF 55,800 (approximately EUR 180).
12.  The applicant sought a judicial review before the Pécs Administrative and Labour Court, but in vain. On 26 May 2014 the Kúria rejected his petition for review on the grounds that he had not relied on any particular breach of the law, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure.
13.  Following a further legislative amendment of 1 April 2014, the applicant became entitled to a disability allowance of HUF 159,100 (approximately EUR 520) per month retroactively as of 1 January 2014.
5.  On 25 March 2004 the applicant company concluded a contract with Univerzal Banka AD (hereinafter “the bank”), a private institution based in Belgrade. Under the terms of this contract, the applicant company acquired a debt belonging to the bank resulting from a final court judgment of 28 December 1999. That judgment was rendered against a socially-owned company called Mehanizacija (hereinafter “the debtor company”) with its seat in Vladičin Han. On 29 August 2000, upon the bank’s application to that effect, the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and the debtor company subsequently paid a part of the judgment debt.
6.  On 14 April 2005, upon the applicant company’s application to that effect, the Leskovac Commercial Court again ordered the full enforcement of the judgment in question.
7.  On 26 July 2005 the applicant company concluded a settlement with the debtor company, which was later annulled following an application by the debtor company by a decision of the Leskovac Commercial Court of 22 January 2009. That decision became final on 3 March 2010.
8.  On 24 December 2001 the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant company specified amounts.
9.  On 2 February 2005, upon the applicant company’s application to that effect, the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment.
10.  On 1 March 2010 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company. As a result, all of the other ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor company were stayed.
11.  The applicant company duly reported its claims based on the above-mentioned judgments.
12.  On 15 October 2010 the Leskovac Commercial Court recognised a part of the applicant company’s claims and instructed the applicant company to initiate civil proceedings in respect of the remainder.
13.  On 29 May 2012 the Leskovac Commercial Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant company and dismissed the remainder of its claims. That decision was upheld by the Commercial Appeals Court on 25 October 2013. The domestic courts found that the contract which the applicant company had concluded with the bank (see paragraph 5 above) entitled it only to the recovery of the amount paid for the transfer of the debt owed to the bank in question, not the judgment debt itself.
14.  The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing.