coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The facts of the applications, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  The first applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Perm.
7.  On 6 May 2003 the first applicant was stopped by a customs officer at a Moscow international airport and found to be in possession of 10,200 euros (EUR) and 8,755 US dollars[1] (USD) which he failed to report on his customs declaration.
8.  On 4 December 2003 the Golovinskiy District Court in Moscow convicted the first applicant of smuggling and issued a confiscation order in respect of the foreign currency he had carried on him. On 5 February 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
9.  Further to an application from a deputy Moscow prosecutor, on 5 December 2008 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court amended the judgment. Noting that there was no evidence that the confiscated currency had been the instrument of a crime or had been criminally acquired, it cancelled the confiscation order and ordered the confiscated money to be refunded to the first applicant.
10.  On 3 June 2009 the amount of 628,750 Russian roubles (RUB)[2] was credited into the first applicant’s bank account.
11.  The first applicant sued the Ministry of Finance, seeking to recover the interest accrued on the retained amount during the period from 6 May 2003 to 3 June 2009, which he assessed at RUB 458,777.
12.  On 25 August 2009 the Tverskoy District Court in Moscow granted his claim in part. It awarded the first applicant RUB 11,719.20[3] in respect of the period from 2 April 2009 when his representative had submitted the bank details to the Ministry of Finance until 3 June 2009 when the transfer had been made. The District Court did not say anything about the part of the claim concerning the previous six-year period.
13.  The second and third applicants were born in 1967 and 1971 respectively and live in Graz, Austria.
14.  On 11 October 2004 the customs officer at a Moscow international airport stopped the second and third applicants as they were carrying EUR 14,600 and 14,980 euros in cash, respectively, which they had not reported on their customs declarations.
15.  On 14 and 16 February 2006 the Golovinskiy District Court in Moscow found the second and third applicants guilty as charged and issued confiscation orders. On 10 April 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.
16.  On an application from a deputy Moscow prosecutor, on 26 August 2011 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court amended the judgments in respect of the second and third applicants. Noting that there was no evidence that the confiscated currency had been the instrument of a crime or had been criminally acquired, it cancelled the confiscation orders and ordered to refund RUB 526,471.62 to Ms Sumann and RUB 540,174.30 to Mr Sumann.[4]
5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the Kyiv Region.
6.  On 15 August 2006 the applicant got involved in a drunken brawl with a stranger and beat him to death.
7.  The date of his arrest cannot be established with certainty. According to the applicant, he was arrested on 20 August 2006. An internal police inquiry established the date as 22 August. The official arrest record gives the time and date of his arrest as 6.45 p.m. on 24 August.
8.  On 25 August 2006 the Sovetskiy District Court in Omsk remanded the applicant in custody. On the same day he was seen by a medical expert who noted two abrasions on his forehead that could have been caused by a solid blunt object four to six days prior to the examination.
9.  On 28 December 2006 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment in a high-security facility.
10.  On 21 January 2007 the applicant asked the prosecutor to investigate his allegation that police officers had beaten him up after his arrest. On 11 March 2008 the prosecutor refused institution of criminal proceedings. On the following day the decision was quashed and an additional inquiry was ordered. Since then the investigative authorities and courts issued and subsequently quashed at least eight decisions to open criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment. Referring to the statements from three police officers and from the investigator all of whom denied any ill-treatment or intimidation, the decision of 31 December 2009 concluded that the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated because the expert had determined his injuries to have been caused no later than 21 August, that is to say, three days prior to his arrest. On 28 July 2015 the prosecutor of the Sovetskiy District in Omsk annulled the decision of 31 December 2009 and ordered an additional inquiry which should establish whether or not the applicant had been brought to the police station already on 20 August 2006 and whether or not the specific police officer described by the applicant had been on duty on that day.
11.  Between 26 February 2007 and 30 October 2009 the applicant served the sentence in IK-9, a correctional institution in Omsk. The dormitory was crammed and in a poor state of repair. On the latter date the applicant was transferred to IK-3 where he stayed until 26 March 2010. The dormitories in which the applicant slept were overcrowded, affording at times no more than 1.5-1.7 sq. m per detainee. The access of natural light was restricted by plastic film covering the windows. The toilets, located in a separate building, were equipped with 7 pans for 600 detainees. On 26 March 2010 the applicant was transferred to LIU-2, a medical facility, where he appears to have stayed until the end of his sentence on 23 August 2015. The premises of the facility were overcrowded and afforded no more than 1.8 sq. m of space per detainee.
7.  The applicant was born in 1988 in Margilan, Uzbekistan. He arrived in Russia on 2 October 2014.
8.  On 5 September 2014 the applicant was charged in absentia with participation in the extremist religious movement Hizb ut-Tahrir al Islami and activities threatening the constitutional order. On the same day the authorities ordered his pre-trial detention and issued an international search and arrest warrant bearing his name.
9.  On 24 December 2014 the applicant was arrested in Moscow. On 26 December 2014 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered and subsequently prolonged his detention.
10.  On 22 January 2015 the applicant was further charged with organising a local branch of Hizb ut-Tahri al Islami in one of the regions of Uzbekistan.
11.  On 23 January 2015 the Uzbek prosecution authorities requested the applicant’s extradition on the above charges. The request included assurances regarding the proper treatment of the applicant, which were formulated in standard terms.
12.  On 21 May 2015 the applicant’s extradition in respect of certain charges was authorised by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation.
13.  The applicant challenged this decision in the courts, arguing that he belonged to a vulnerable group and therefore faced a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 at the hands of the Uzbek authorities.
14.  On 13 October 2015 his appeals were dismissed by a final decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Without reference to any relevant evidentiary material, the Supreme Court considered that the applicant’s claims were hypothetical and lacked specific indications regarding the level of risk, and observed that the situation in a requesting state might change over time. It also found that the assurances of the Uzbek authorities were satisfactory.
15.  On 5 June 2015 the applicant lodged a request for refugee status, referring to persecution in Uzbekistan on religious grounds.
16.  On 9 November 2015 his request was refused by a final administrative decision of the migration authorities. The applicant challenged this decision in the courts, referring inter alia to the risk of ill‑treatment.
17.  On 18 May 2016 his appeals were dismissed by a decision of Moscow City Court.
18.  On 25 December 2015 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s expulsion for violating the migration rules. The applicant’s appeal, which referred to the risk of ill-treatment, amongst other factors, was dismissed by the Moscow City Court on 24 February 2016.
19.  On 16 February 2016 the applicant applied for temporary asylum. No information concerning the outcome of these proceedings was supplied by the parties.
5.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1963 and 1966 respectively and live in the town of Taganrog.
6.  On 2 July 2001 the Neklinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region found the applicants guilty of various offences but declared that they need not serve their respective sentences because the case was time-barred. On 2 October 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
7.  On 31 January 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed by way of supervisory review the decisions of 2 July and 2 October 2001 and discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicants. It found that the courts had not been in a position to decide on the applicants’ guilt because the whole case had been time-barred.
8.  The applicants sued the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for, among other things, compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage in connection with their prosecution.
9.  In its judgment of 1 March 2005 the Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region rejected their claims. It reasoned as follows:
“... The court finds that, since the applicants’ guilt of the commission of the above‑mentioned crimes was established, the use of the measure of restraint was justified. This being so, the court has no reason to grant the applicants’ claims for compensation in respect of the non-pecuniary damage resulting from their unlawful detention and the obligation not to leave their usual place of residence. ...”
10.  On 11 May 2005 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 1 March 2005 on appeal. It stated that:
“ ... The first instance court, in reaching its decision refusing to grant the applicants’ claims for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, correctly assumed that the decision of the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court dated 31 January 2002 cleared them of liability on non-exonerating grounds. In the court’s view, since the applicants’ guilt of the commission of the above-mentioned crimes was established, the application of the measure of restraint during the investigation was justified.
The court’s conclusion is a correct one, made following the examination and proper assessment of the legally relevant circumstances of the case. ...”
4.  The applicant was born in 1988 and is detained in Saransk.
5.  On 3 August 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the rape of a girl, who was also a minor.
6.  On 5 August 2009 the Staroshaygovskiy District Court of the Mordovia Republic remanded him in custody. He remained in pre-trial detention pending investigation and trial on the grounds that he was accused of a serious crime, might reoffend, abscond, destroy evidence, threaten witnesses, or interfere with the investigation.
7.  On 24 December 2010 the Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic found him guilty as charged.
8.  On 4 October 2010 the applicant, acting for himself, submitted his first letter to the Court.
9.  On 4 August and 4 October 2010 he provided two powers of attorney authorising Mr Frimu, one of his cellmates, to represent him before the Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1969.
6.  On 27 June 2005 a criminal investigation was initiated into a theft allegedly committed by the applicant in the Republic of Uzbekistan. On 12 September 2005 an investigator ordered the applicant’s arrest and placed him on the list of fugitives.
7.  It appears that in the meantime the applicant moved to the Russian town of Perm. On 21 January 2007 he was arrested there. On 23 January 2007 a prosecutor issued a decision to detain the applicant pending resolution of the extradition request in his regard. The decision referred to Article 61 of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (signed in Minsk on 22 January 1993 and amended on 28 March 1997, “the Minsk Convention”). It did not indicate that it was amenable to appeal. On 25 January 2007 the prosecutor wrote to the prison authorities asking them to hold the applicant in detention until further notice.
8.  On 19 February 2007 the Uzbek authorities requested the applicant’s extradition. On 6 March 2007 the prosecutor applied to the court for authorisation of the applicant’s detention pending extradition. He again relied on Article 61 of the Minsk Convention and Articles 97‑101, 108 and 466 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia (“the CCrP”). On 9 March 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Perm authorised the applicant’s detention pending extradition. The District Court did not set a limit on the length of the applicant’s detention. It referred to Article 108 of the CCrP. On 27 March 2007 the Perm Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal. No court subsequently reviewed or extended the applicant’s detention.
9.  It appears that on 10 July 2007 the applicant was handed over to the authorities of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
4.  The applicant company is a limited liability company with its seat in Ansfelden.
5.  On 3 May 2000 the applicant company applied to the Linz-Land District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft – DAA) for the permission to modify its facility site by constructing a loading zone and a noise protection wall. An oral hearing was held on 1 March 2001.
6.  On 12 July 2001 the applicant company lodged an application for transfer of jurisdiction, because the DAA had not rendered a decision within the statutory six-month time-limit.
7.  By decision of 23 July 2001 the DAA granted the applicant company permission to modify its facility site and dismissed the objections lodged by persons living in the vicinity of the site (hereinafter, “the neighbours”).
8.  On 18 December 2001 the Upper Austria Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann von Oberösterreich – hereinafter, “the Regional Governor”) lifted the DAA’s decision because of lack of jurisdiction, and on 19 December 2001 he dismissed the applicant company’s application for transfer of jurisdiction.
9.  The applicant company appealed against the latter decision, but its appeal was dismissed by the Federal Minister of Economy and Labour (Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit – hereinafter, the “Minister”) on 20 August 2002.
10.  The Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) lifted the Minister’s decision on 17 December 2002 and held that the Regional Governor was the competent authority to decide on the matter.
11.  On 16 October 2003 the Minister lifted the Regional Governor’s decision of 19 December 2001 and held that the latter was competent to decide on the merits of the applicant company’s case.
12.  Meanwhile, on 14 January 2002 the DAA had granted the applicant company permission to modify its facility site and dismissed the neighbours’ objections.
13.  On 22 December 2003 the Regional Governor lifted the DAA’s decision because of lack of jurisdiction, and granted the applicant company the permission.
14.  On 26 January 2004 the neighbours appealed against this decision to the Minister.
15.  On 1 September 2004 the applicant company filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction, because a decision had not been reached within the statutory six-month time-limit.
16.  On 7 September 2004 the Administrative Court ordered the Minister to take a decision within three months. On 11 November 2004, upon request by the Minister, it extended the time-limit by another six months.
17.  On 11 May 2005 the Administrative Court refused another request by the Minister for an extension of the time-limit and assumed jurisdiction. After having requested an additional statement from an official expert (Amtssachverständiger) on 14 October 2008, the Administrative Court dismissed the neighbours’ appeal as being unfounded by judgment of 1 July 2010 (served on the applicant company’s counsel on 28 July 2010).
5.  A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
6.  On 23 December 2011 the applicants, political activists, participated in a demonstration organised by the political party “Politics Can Be Different’” (Lehet Más a Politika). The demonstrators blocked the entrance of a car park adjacent to the Parliament building by chaining themselves to each other and to concrete columns situated next to the entrance.
7.  Following the incident the Budapest main police department opened criminal investigations against twenty-nine persons, including the applicants, on charges of violation of personal liberty under Article 175(1) of Act no. IV on the [old] Criminal Code.
8.  On 9 March 2012 Parliament enacted Act no. XII of 2012 (“the Amnesty Act”) (see paragraph 12 below), which entered into force on 10 March 2012.
9.  On 29 March 2012 the Budapest main police department discontinued the criminal investigation against the twenty-nine suspects, pursuant to Article 190 §§ 1 (e) and 2 of the Code on Criminal Procedure on the grounds that they had been granted amnesty. The applicants did not appeal against that decision.
10.  On 6 September 2012 six of the applicants, Ms Bende, Ms Kalocsai, Ms Ámon, Ms Székelyné Rákosi, Mr Moldován and Mr Gajárszki, lodged a constitutional complaint requesting the Constitutional Court to declare sections 1, 2 and 4 of the Amnesty Act unconstitutional as infringing the right to their reputation and the principle of presumption of innocence.
11.  The Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It reasoned that the complaint did not raise any constitutional-law issues of “fundamental importance”, since it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the language employed by the Act could not be interpreted as establishing that the applicants had indeed committed the offence. In any event, the complaint was time-barred since it had been lodged outside the statutory 180 days’ time-limit following the entry into force of the legislation.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Korsakov, Sakhalin Region. The second applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Moscow.
5.  The applicants sued the Trest Zhilishchnogo Hozyajstva municipal company (МП «Трест жилищного хозяйства» – hereinafter “the municipal company”) in two unrelated sets of civil proceedings.
6.  On 22 January 2003 the Korsakovskiy Town Court of the Sakhalin Region (hereinafter “Town Court”) granted the claim by the first applicant for salary arrears and ordered the municipal company to pay him 1,270 euros (EUR). The judgment became final on the same date, but remained unenforced.
7.  On 1 March 2004 the Town Court granted the claim by the second applicant for compensation for the damage to her health sustained as a result of the acts of one of the municipal company’s employees. The court awarded the applicant EUR 16,256. The judgment became final on 25 May 2004. It was partly enforced in 2004 and in 2006-07; the applicant received EUR 11,888.
8.  On 7 May 2007, in the course of insolvency proceedings in respect of the municipal company, the Commercial Court of the Sakhalin Region (hereinafter “the Commercial Court”) granted the second applicant’s claim for compensation of lost income and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims. She was awarded EUR 44,044. The second applicant appealed. On 18 July 2007 the Commercial Court discontinued the appeal proceedings on the grounds that the municipal company had been liquidated. The Commercial Court relied on Articles 49 § 3 and 63 § 8 of the Civil Code of Russia as interpreted by the Plenary Supreme Commercial Court in Ruling No. 29 of 15 December 2004 (see paragraphs 13-14 below).
9.  The municipal company was incorporated as a municipal unitary company set up by a decision of the local authority and provided heating supply and maintenance services in respect of municipal housing. The municipal company had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it by the local authority in order to carry out its statutory activities.
10.  According to the second applicant, on 27 April 2002 the local authority withdrew most of the assets from the municipal company’s economic control. The assets were subsequently transferred to a newly created company; the debts remained with the municipal company.
11.  On 27 September 2005 the municipal company was declared insolvent and it was put into liquidation. On 7 May 2007 the Commercial Court ended the liquidation proceedings.
8.  The applicants, Mr Khamtokhu and Mr Aksenchik, were born in 1970 and 1985 respectively. They are currently serving life sentences in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region of Russia.
9.  On 14 December 2000 the Supreme Court of the Adygea Republic found the first applicant guilty of multiple offences, including escape from prison, attempted murder of police officers and State officials, and illegal possession of firearms, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
10.  On 19 October 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the first applicant’s conviction on appeal.
11.  On 26 March 2008 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the appeal judgment of 19 October 2001 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
12.  On 30 June 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the first applicant’s conviction on appeal. The court reclassified some of the charges against him but the life sentence remained unchanged.
13.  On 28 April 2010 the Tomsk Regional Court found the second applicant guilty on three counts of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
14.  On 12 August 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld that conviction on appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Vilnius.
6.  On 5 March 2009 the applicant and his grandmother’s neighbour, 88‑year-old J.S., signed a contract on lifelong maintenance (išlaikymo iki gyvos galvos sutartis). Under that contract, J.S. transferred the rights to her apartment to the applicant, who undertook to take care of her until she died by providing her with food and medication, looking after her apartment, walking her dog, and providing any other necessary assistance.
7.  In June 2009 J.S. lodged an application with a court to terminate the contract on the grounds that the applicant had not fulfilled his obligations and had not been taking proper care of her. The applicant objected to the termination and argued that he had complied with the terms of the contract. Relying on the testimony of several witnesses, on 29 January 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court, in an oral hearing at which both the applicant and J.S. were present, granted J.S.’s application and annulled the contract.
8.  The applicant appealed, arguing that he had complied with the terms of the contract and that it should therefore not have been terminated. On 11 October 2010 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing at which J.S.’s lawyer was present but the applicant and his lawyer were not. According to the Government, a notification letter was sent to the applicant on 21 September 2010. During the hearing the court noted that the applicant had been notified of the hearing (apie posėdį pranešta) and proceeded to examine the case in his absence. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 22 October 2010, upholding the first-instance judgment in its entirety.
9.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. He complained, inter alia, that he had not been duly notified of the hearing before the Court of Appeal and had thus been unable effectively to defend his interests. The applicant submitted that he had received the notification about the time and place of the hearing by standard (non-registered) post only on 14 October 2010, when he had found it in his letter box. However, on 4 November 2010 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s cassation appeal as raising no important legal questions. The applicant lodged two other cassation appeals, but on 6 December 2010 and 10 January 2011 the Supreme Court refused to examine them, citing the same grounds as previously.