coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The first applicant, Partners 2000 Kft, is a Hungarian limited liability company with its seat in Nyárliget. It is owned and run by the second applicant. The second applicant is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Sopron. The third applicant is the second applicant’s wife, who was born in 1973 and lives in Sopron. The fourth applicant is the second and third applicants’ minor child, born in 2000.
7.  On 11 September 2012 Parliament enacted Act no. CXXXIV of 2012 on the Repression of Smoking of the Youth and on Tobacco Retail. The Act was published on 24 September 2012.
8.  According to the Act, tobacco retail was to become a State monopoly (exercised through a State-owned company, ND Nemzeti Dohánykereskedelmi Nonprofit Zrt), and tobacco retailers would become authorised through a concession tender, advertised on 15 December 2012. The time-limit for applying was 22 February 2013.
9.  Entities or persons previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender. Legal persons were not entitled to apply.
10.  The Act was subsequently amended on several occasions, and the final version was enacted on 6 June 2013, with entry into force on 1 July 2013. Government Decree no. 181/2013. (VI.7.), which contained the detailed rules for the operations of the future concession-holders, was published on 8 June 2013, that is, after the completion of the tendering process, the results of which had become public on 22 April 2013. The decision about the tenders was taken by ND Zrt itself.
11.  The first applicant, Partners 2000 Kft had been active in tobacco retail for several years. Since, however, it was not entitled to apply for a concession under the new law, the second applicant applied personally for one, on several occasions. However, ND Zrt turned down his applications, informing him that he had not obtained a tobacco retail concession. The decisions said that his applications did not fully meet the requirements, without developing the shortcomings.
12.  No compensation is available for ex-tobacco-retailers who, by not being awarded a concession, lost part of their livelihood. The refusals, such as those of Mr Györkös, were not subject to any legal remedy.
13.  The applicants submitted that others in comparable situations – and in the case of those who had never been doing tobacco retail beforehand, in non-comparable situations – were granted concessions, which difference in treatment cannot be explained by any circumstance other than political adherence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Szeged.
5.  The applicant had a car accident in 1993, sustained serious injuries and, as a consequence, her loss of capacity to work was assessed to be 67 per cent.
6.  An insurance company was obliged to pay a monthly allowance to the applicant. In order to redeem the monthly allowance, the insurance company offered 4,400,000 Hungarian forints (17,600 euros) to the applicant as compensation for all damages she has suffered. The applicant and the insurance company concluded an agreement on the lump sum on 25 February 1999.
7. Subsequently, the applicant realised that the lump sum paid by the insurance company did not cover all her damages, believing that the calculation method applied by the insurance company was mistaken. Consequently, on 7 August 2003 the applicant initiated a civil lawsuit against the insurance company requesting the court to declare the agreement invalid and to oblige the insurance company to pay compensation for damages.
8.  The Budapest Regional Court delivered a partial judgment on 18 April 2006 in which dismissed the applicant’s claim on the alleged invalidity of the parties’ agreement. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the partial judgment on 21 February 2007. The applicant challenged the partial judgment before the Supreme Court which upheld it on 17 October 2007.
9.  As to the remainder, the Budapest Regional Court in its judgment delivered on 11 June 2007 partly found for the applicant in respect of the damage claim. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim on 23 April 2008. The applicant challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court but to no avail. The Supreme Court upheld the final and binding judgment on 11 February 2009.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest.
6.  The applicant intended to organise a demonstration protesting against “the persecution of national radicalism”. It was planned to take place between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. on 15 August 2009. The venue was Venyige Street in Budapest Xth District, in front of Budapest Penitentiary.
7.  Venyige Street is of a width of five metres in the Government’s submissions and of eight in the applicant’s. Parallel to the main driveway, there is a service lane, of a width equivalent to that of two cars; this area is normally used as a car park. In the applicant’s submissions, this latter section could have accommodated largely all the participants, without them creating any major traffic incident.
8.  The applicant, in the notification addressed to Budapest Police Department under Act no. III of 1989 on the Right of Assembly, indicated that a maximum of 200 participants were to be expected. This notification was made at 5.40 p.m. on 12 August 2009.
9.  On 14 August 2009 Budapest Police Department banned the demonstration, in pursuit of its prerogatives under section 8(1) of Act no. III of 1989. It was of the view that there was no alternative route for the traffic in the neighbourhood, and consequently the demonstration would impede traffic inordinately. The applicant was reproached with the fact that the notification did not contain the agenda for the gathering.
10.  Because of this prohibition, the demonstration did not take place.
11.  On 17 August 2009 the applicant requested judicial review of the police decision. He explained inter alia that he had not specified the agenda because the meeting had been intended as a rather small one and that therefore the actual course of events, such as speeches or discussion, was hard to predict.
12.  On 19 August 2009 the Budapest Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. It observed that the question of previous notification of the agenda was immaterial, since the only valid reason in the case was the disproportionate difficulties which would be caused to traffic by the demonstration.
13.  The court relied on the expert opinion provided by the Traffic Division of Budapest Police Department, in whose view the demonstration would have significantly impeded the traffic heading to the shops located in Venyige Street, a dead end, to the local waste disposal site and to the suppliers’ entrance of Budapest Prison; and the disruption caused by the crowd might have extended to Maglódi Road, a major thoroughfare in the vicinity with lines of city transport involved. Relying on that reasoning, the court endorsed the police decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Krasnodar.
5.  On 24 March 2009 the Military Court of Novorossiysk Garrison (Новороссийский гарнизонный военный суд) convicted the applicant of laundering of the proceeds of crime and sentenced him to a fine.
6.  On 21 May 2009 the Military Court of the North-Caucasian Command (Северо-Кавказский окружной военный суд) acquitted the applicant on appeal.
7.  On 21 July 2009 the Presidium of the Military Court of the North‑Caucasian Command, on a public prosecutor’s initiative, annulled the judgment of 21 May 2009 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the appeal court. The annulment was reasoned by two main arguments: (1) unresolved contradictions between witnesses’ statements pertaining to the applicant’s criminal intent, and (2) absence in the appeal judgment of a summary of the arguments presented by the prosecution during the appeal proceedings.
8.  On 6 August 2009 the Military Court of the North-Caucasian Command, acting on appeal, reversed the judgment of 24 March 2009 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the trial court.
9.  In 2010 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated due to decriminalization of his actions under the domestic law.
5.  The applicants were claimants in civil proceedings.
6.  In the applications Trapeznikov v. Russia and Bychkov and Others v. Russia, the applicants were former participants of the Chernobyl clean-up operation who sued the relevant authorities for an inflation adjustment to their social benefits.
7.  In the application Markova v. Russia, the applicant sought the eviction of her late son’s wife and her granddaughter from the flat she was living in, alleging that she was the sole owner because her son had renounced his share in the flat in her favour.
8.  In the application Ryabchikov v. Russia, the applicant inherited a house in accordance with a will drawn up by his late mother. Later he discovered that she had two plots of land which she transferred back in 1994 to an agricultural company to which she was a member. The applicant sought to recover the property of these two plots of land alleging that the transfer had not been duly formalised and that consequently the land formed part of his inheritance.
9.  In all of the applications, the first-instance courts found for the applicants, the judgments were upheld on appeal and they became enforceable. Subsequently, at the defendants’ requests, the presidia of the relevant regional courts quashed the judgments by way of supervisory review. In the applications Trapeznikov and Bychkov and Others, the presidia found that the lower courts failed to take into account the specific method of calculation of indexation established by the Government for this particular category of social benefits. In the applications Markova and Ryabchikov, they concluded that the findings of the lower courts favorable to the applicants were based on the retrospective application of the law (see Appendix).
5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Skokie, USA.
6.  On 31 August 1998 the applicant lodged a request with the Bucharest Commission for Implementing Law no. 9/1998 (the County Commission) seeking compensation for assets owned by her ancestors and transferred to the Bulgarian State. On 29 April 2004 the County Commission issued a decision whereby the applicant was entitled to compensation of ROL 4,991,284,506 (approximately EUR 123,500 at the time).
7.  Between 2005 and 2008 the applicant lodged several applications with the National Authority for Property Restitution (hereinafter “the National Authority”) and the President of Romania for payment of the compensation. On each occasion, the applicant was informed that her file was subject to ratification by the responsible authority for implementing Law no. 9/1998.
8.  On 20 February 2009 the National Authority issued the ratification decision, confirming the applicant’s entitlement to RON 499,128.43 (approximately EUR 117,000 at the time). The decision mentioned that the payment would be made in two annual instalments, as provided for by the methodological rules for the implementation of the law, in force since 30 November 1998 and amended on 26 October 2007.
9.  To date, the applicant has not received the compensation or any indication as to when such compensation would be paid.
5.  On 30 May 2003 the Gjirokastra Commission recognised, amongst others, the applicants’ inherited property rights over an agricultural land measuring 655,400 sq. m. The applicants and other heirs would be awarded compensation in the sum of 2,297,398 Albanian leks (“ALL”) in respect of the entire land.
6.  To date, no compensation has been paid.
7.  On 15 September 1995 the Korça Commission recognised, amongst others, the applicant’s inherited property rights over some land measuring 2,800 sq. m of which 300 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining plot measuring 2,500 sq. m, which was situated within the village boundaries and used to be arable land, was occupied, the applicant and other heirs would be compensated in State bonds in the event the buildings located on the land were not privatised (“u kompensohet me obligacion shtetëror sipërfaqja 2,500 m2 ish tokë arë, brenda vijave kufizuese të Zvarishtit, në rast se objektet (...) nuk do të privatizohen”). The Commission stated that the applicant owned one sixths of the land.
 8.  On 21 December 1998 the Korça Commission recognised, amongst others, the applicant’s inherited property rights over another plot of arable land and meadow measuring 19,796 sq. m. Since the arable land and meadow were occupied, the applicant would be compensated in State bonds equivalent to a financial amount of ALL 36,890. 12.  On 28 August 2000 the Kavaja Commission recognised, amongst others, the applicant’s inherited property rights over two plots of land totalling 17,500 sq. m. Since the plots of land were occupied, the applicant and other heirs would be compensated in kind in respect of a plot measuring 10,000 sq. m and in State bonds in respect of another plot measuring 750 sq. m. No decision was taken in respect of any right to compensation as regards the remaining plot measuring 6,750 sq. m. 14.  On 13 December 1996 the Devoll Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over an agricultural land measuring 27,200 sq. m. The applicants would be awarded compensation by way of State bonds in the sum of ALL 367,000. 16. On 23 June 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 836 sq. m of which 513 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining plot was occupied, the applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law. 17.  On 17 March 2008 the Agency on Restitution and Compensation of Properties amended in part the Commission decision and decided that the applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law even in respect of the plot of land measuring 513 sq. m.
5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Cluj‑Napoca.
6.  The applicant is the son and heir of Mr C. Pleş. He replaced his father in the domestic proceedings after his death.
7.  The applicant’s father was shot on 21 December 1989 while participating in a demonstration organised in Cluj against N. Ceauşescu. He was immediately hospitalised and diagnosed with “a gunshot wound in the right side of the chest, rupture of the right lung and fracture of ribs seven and eight, plus a gunshot wound in the right arm”. Following surgery, two lobes of his right lung were removed. He was left with a breathing deficit of over 30%, paresis of his right arm, and a permanent disability that prevented him from continuing to work to support his family. Furthermore, in subsequent years he was hospitalised many times because of serious breathing problems.
8.  Criminal proceedings were instituted against the army commanders who had ordered the shooting of demonstrators during the events of December 1989 in Cluj. Many victims of the repression joined civil complaints to the proceedings, requesting compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage. The applicant’s father lodged one such civil complaint, requesting 150,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL) (approximately 4,100 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage, ROL 500,000,000 (approximately EUR 14,000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and ROL 50,000,000 (about 1,400 euros) for costs and expenses incurred during the trial.
9.  On 17 May 2004 the applicant’s father died. He was replaced as a civil party in the proceedings by the applicant.
10.  By a judgment of 23 May 2005 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, acting as a first-instance court, convicted five of the officers involved in the events of December 1989 in Cluj. They were ordered to pay compensation jointly with the Ministry of National Defence to all eighty‑four civil parties in the case. The court granted the applicant ROL 150,000,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and ROL 50,000,000 for costs and expenses. It omitted to grant the claim for ROL 500,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, without providing any reason.
11.  Eighteen civil parties to the criminal proceedings, including the applicant, lodged an appeal on points of law, complaining about the way in which the first-instance court had examined their claims for damages. The grounds of appeal of the civil parties were not identical. In most of the cases they concerned the amount of damages awarded. The applicant complained that the first-instance court had not granted him the requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
12.  By a decision of 20 March 2006, a panel of nine judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed all the appeals lodged by the civil parties. The court of last resort referred to the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Civil Code concerning compensation for damages in the context of civil actions joined to criminal proceedings (see paragraph 13 below) and without examining in particular any of the civil parties’ appeals, it dismissed all the appeals as ill‑founded.
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Novi Pazar.
6.  She was employed by DP “Raška Holding Kompanija” AD, a socially-owned company based in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the debtor”).
7.  On 30 June 2004, 25 September 2009 and 21 December 2009 respectively, the Novi Pazar Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant certain amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. These judgments became final on 15 September 2004, 20 October 2009 and 5 October 2010 respectively.
8.  On 5 October 2004 and 11 July 2011 respectively, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Novi Pazar Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgments; it further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs.
9.  On 11 September 2013 the Kraljevo Commercial Court opened preliminary insolvency proceedings against the debtor.
10.  On 25 October 2013 the same court opened insolvency proceedings against the debtor.
11.  The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Barnaul.
5.  In 2001 he became a suspect and then an accused in a criminal case concerning fraud. During the investigation of the criminal case the applicant was under a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence.
6.  In March 2003 the prosecutor referred the criminal case to the Industrialnyy District Court of Barnaul (“the District Court”) for trial.
7.  On 19 September 2003 the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial following the complaints by one of the victims and a witness about threats expressed by the applicant in their respect.
8.  On 22 September 2003 the applicant’s representatives lodged a cassation appeal against the detention order of 19 September 2003 with the Regional Court via the District Court.
9.  On 6 October 2003 the District Court forwarded that appeal to the Regional Court and set its examination on 27 November 2003.
10.  On 8 October 2003 the District Court forwarded a copy of the applicant’s appeal to other participants of the criminal proceedings and informed them that they had until 22 October 2003 to submit their comments, if any.
11.  On 22 October 2003 victim Shch. submitted her comments on the applicant’s grounds of appeal.
12.  On 19 November 2003 the Regional Court received all materials related to the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 19 September 2003.
13.  On 27 November 2003 the Regional Court examined and rejected the applicant’s appeal.
14.  The District Court subsequently extended the applicant’s detention on several occasions.
15.  On 30 September 2004 the applicant was released under a written undertaking.
16.  On 13 December 2005 the District Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.
17.  On 18 May 2006 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction.
5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Rostov region. He took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. He was subsequently registered disabled, and became entitled to various social benefits.
6.  In February 2003 the applicant brought proceedings claiming that his benefits should be increased in accordance with a particular method. The adjustment method suggested by the applicant was approved by the domestic courts, which in addition increased the social benefits to which he was entitled to in 2002 in accordance with this same method (judgment of 25 February 2003).
7.  In June 2003 the applicant brought a similar set of proceedings in respect of social benefits to which he was entitled to during the first six months of 2003. Relying on their previous judgment by which they approved the adjustment method suggested by the applicant, the domestic courts increased his social benefits for the new period accordingly (judgment of 18 June 2003).
8.  In October 2003 the judgment of 25 February 2003 approving the adjustment method suggested by the applicant was quashed by a supervisory review court.
9.  In March 2004 the domestic courts quashed on the basis of newly discovered circumstances the judgment delivered on 18 June 2003 on the ground that it was based on the judgment delivered in February 2003 but quashed since then by way of supervisory review.
10.  Both judgments, of February and June 2003, remained unenforced prior to their quashing.
11.  In 2006 the applicant brought proceedings against welfare authorities claiming arrears for various benefits as well as indexation of those benefits. The Zernogradskiy District Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claims (judgment of 19 June 2006, upheld on 18 July 2006). This judgment remained unenforced for fourteen months.
4.  The municipal unitary enterprise Sysolskoye proizvodstvennoye obyedineniye “Zhilkomkhoz” (МУП Сысольское производственное объединение «Жилкомхоз», hereinafter “the company”) was set up by a decision of the administration of the Sysolskiy District. It provided maintenance services in respect of municipal housing, including heating and water supply, maintenance of the sewage systems and renovation and maintenance of the municipal housing stock.
5.  The Company had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it in order to carry out its statutory activities. According to its statutory articles all of the company’s property as well as obtained profits belonged to the municipal estate.
6.  On 3 March 2006 the Commercial Court of the Komi Republic commenced insolvency proceedings and appointed an external administrator to oversee the company’s administration.
7.  On 29 September 2006 the Commercial Court of the Komi Republic ordered the insolvency proceedings in respect of the company.
8.  On 28 August 2008 the Commercial Court of the Komi Republic discontinued the insolvency proceedings and ordered the respondent company’s liquidation. The creditors’ claims, which had not been satisfied during the liquidation procedure, including the applicants’ claims, were considered as settled.
10.  On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicants brought proceedings against the debtor company seeking salary arrears and other work-related payments.
11.  On 9 August 2006 and 30 October 2006 the Justice of the Peace of the Sysolskiy Court Circuit of the Komi Republic awarded the applicants salary arrears (the amounts are specified in the Appendix, column no. 2) and compensation for non-pecuniary damage against their employer. On 10 October 2006 and 10 November 2006 respectively the Sysolskiy District Court upheld those judgments on appeal and they became final.