coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently in detention in Warsaw.
6.  On 17 January 2006 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. He was suspected of the murder of two people and of inciting the murder of another person who had intended to testify against him in a separate set of proceedings.
7.  He was subsequently convicted several times for various offences. In particular, on 27 February 2013 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted him of murder.
8.  On 19 January 2006 the Warsaw Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a dangerous detainee. The decision stated as follows:
“The commission hereby decides that [the applicant] is to be placed in a designated wing or cell in a remand centre in conditions which provide increased protection for society and for the security of the remand centre.
The commission approves the proposals of the directors of the protection and prison wings.
The detainee has been informed of his right to appeal against the commission’s decision within seven days to the Warsaw Regional Court, XI Penitentiary Division.”
The last sentence of the decision contained information about who was to be informed about the applicant’s placement in a cell for dangerous detainees.
9.  The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
10.  The commission reviewed and upheld its decision to classify the applicant as a dangerous detainee on several occasions. In total, there were over thirty decisions to extend the period of imposition of the regime in respect of the applicant. All the decisions were based on the same pattern of wording, which read as follows:
“The commission has decided to extend [the applicant’s categorisation as a dangerous detainee] as the reasons for his placement in a cell in conditions which provide increased protection for society and for the security of the remand centre have not ceased to exist.”
11.  In particular, a decision of 3 January 2013 to extend the imposition of the dangerous detainee regime on the applicant referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and his highly deficient moral character.
12.  An appeal by the applicant against the latter decision was the only one he made against the series of decisions to impose and extend the dangerous detainee regime on him.
13.  On 30 January 2013 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the decision had been lawful.
14.  On 21 November 2013 the commission lifted the dangerous detainee regime applied to the applicant.
15.  The applicant was kept in a cell which was constantly monitored via closed‑circuit television. He was subjected to a body search every time he left or entered the cell, which meant in practice that he had to strip naked in front of prison officers.
4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Kazan.
5.  On 24 November 2006 the Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan (Ново-Савиновский районный суда города Казани) acquitted the applicant on four counts of drug-dealing, convicted her on one count and sentenced her to eight years’ imprisonment and a fine.
6.  On 13 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Republic of Tatarstan (Верховный суд Республики Татарстан) upheld the judgment on appeal with minor changes.
7.  On 2 July 2008 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan in supervisory review proceedings annulled the judgment on the applicant’s request, because she was formally indicted outside the prescribed statutory time-limits.
8.  On 15 October 2008 the Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan acquitted the applicant on the same grounds after re-calculation of the applicable time-limits for investigative actions.
9.  On 18 November 2008 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld the judgment on appeal.
10.  On 18 February 2009 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan in supervisory review proceedings annulled the judgments on the prosecutor’s request. The annulment was reasoned by three main arguments: 1) in the opinion of the supervisory court all of the evidence was collected within the statutory time-limits, 2) the lower courts having examining all the evidence during the hearings did not mention them in the judgments and only gave reasons for dismissing them, and 3) formal indictment of the applicant outside of the statutory time-limits should not have led to acquittal in any event. The case was sent for reconsideration.
11.  On 9 October 2009 the applicant was convicted, sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for five years, and fined.
4.  All applicants were former employees of “LETEKS” u stečaju (the debtor), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.
5.  Since the debtor failed to fulfil its contractual obligations towards its employees, on an unspecified date, the applicants instituted civil proceedings against it.
6.  On 18 April 2008 the Leskovac Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicants specified amounts on account of salary arrears, plus the costs and expenses of the civil proceedings.
7.  On 3 October 2010 the above judgment became final.
8.  Between 20 November 2008 and 30 November 2009 all applicants filed separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgment.
9.  The Leskovac Municipal Court ultimately accepted the applicants’ requests and issued the enforcement orders, respectively. The essential information as to the enforcement proceedings in respect of each application is outlined in the Annex to this judgment.
10.  On 25 January 2011 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 47/2010).
11.  The applicants duly submitted their respective claims.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicants’ claims based on the judgment of 18 April 2008 were formally recognised.
13.  The insolvency proceedings against the debtor are still ongoing.
14.  On 31 March 2010, the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal.
15.  On 8 July 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal in respect of all applicants except the applicants Ms Jagoda Jančić (application no. 62499/10), Mr Predrag Stamenković (application no. 63100/10) and Ms Stana Stanković (application no. 63137/10).
16.  On 18 September 2013 the Constitutional Court also found a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, in respect of Ms Jančić, Mr Stamenković and Ms Stanković. It further awarded each of them 500 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and ordered the court in Leskovac to expedite the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and, prior to his conviction, lived in Yaroslavl.
5.  On 15 April 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. Subsequently, he was charged with fraud, attempted fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion and a breach of duties in his work as a tax agent.
6.  On 16 April 2008 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yaroslavl remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation. The judge found that (1) the applicant was suspected of serious crimes, (2) he might abscond, (3) he might put pressure on witnesses, or (4) he might interfere with the investigation.
7.  On 25 April 2008 the Yaroslavl Regional Court upheld the detention order of 16 April 2008 on appeal.
8.  The applicant remained in detention pending investigation and trial. The courts extended his detention, using the same stereotyped formula as described above.
9.  On 16 March 2009 he was committed for trial before the Kirovskiy District Court of Yaroslavl.
10.  On 27 October 2009 he was convicted of the charges and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
11.  On 29 December 2009 the Yaroslavl Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination.
12.  On 25 January 2010 the trial court ordered his release on bail.
13.  On 27 January 2010 the bail was paid and the applicant was released.
14.  On 20 July 2010 the applicant was convicted of fraud and attempted fraud and sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment.
15.  On 19 October 2010 the Yaroslavl Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
16.  On 2 December 2014 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration. They acknowledged that the applicant had been detained “between 15 April 2008 and 27 October 2009 ... without relevant and sufficient grounds”, in breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. They offered to pay him a sum of 1,850 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction and invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases.
17.  On 2 February 2015 the applicant replied that he had taken note of the Government’s acknowledgment of the violation, but that the amount of compensation was not acceptable to him.
5.  The applicants were born in 1943 and 1942 respectively and live in Odessa.
6.  On 30 April 2002 the applicants’ daughter was struck by a car driven by P. as she was crossing the street. She died in hospital following the accident.
7.  Between April 2002 and October 2010 the prosecution authorities delivered at least ten decisions refusing to institute or discontinuing criminal proceedings in respect of P. owing to a lack of corpus delicti in his actions. All those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unsubstantiated and further investigations were ordered.
8.  On 9 July 2009 the first applicant lodged a civil claim against P. within the criminal proceedings. On 15 July 2009 he was attributed the status of an aggrieved party in those proceedings.
9.  On 26 October 2010 the Odessa Suvorivskyy District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against P. as time-barred. On 21 December 2010 and 20 November 2012 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) and the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the Higher Specialised Court”), respectively, upheld that decision.
10.  On 20 November 2012 the Higher Specialised Court also issued a separate ruling, by which it brought to the attention of the Court of Appeal and the Odessa regional prosecutor’s office a number of shortcomings in the proceedings. It stated, in particular, that the pre-trial investigation had been perfunctory and lengthy. Since 2002, there had been hardly any investigative measures. The numerous refusals by the investigating authorities to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the accident had been unfounded and had eventually been quashed. Guidelines as regards remedying shortcomings in the investigation had been ignored. The overall duration of the investigation, over ten years, had been unjustified. In summary, the Higher Specialised Court held that the criminal investigation in question had not complied with domestic legislation or the Convention. It therefore instructed the aforementioned authorities to take measures to prevent similar violations in the future.
4.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1975 respectively and live in the city of Komsomolsk.
5.  On 27 May 2006 Mr S., driving a bus, hit the applicants’ minor son who was later that day brought to hospital with severe injuries. On the same day police examined the scene of the accident, questioned S. and several other witnesses.
6.  On 1 June 2006 the applicants’ son died of numerous serious injuries caused by the above traffic accident.
7.  On 9 June 2006 the Komsomolsk Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against S. This refusal was quashed on 14 June 2006 by the same office and instructions were given as to further investigative actions. In particular, the police were instructed to find and examine the direct witness of the accident who was an employee of the Komsomolsk Department of State Postal Service (later it turned out to be B.). The case was transferred to the police for further inquiries.
8.  On 6 July 2006 the Poltava Regional Police Department instituted criminal proceedings into the traffic accident which led to the child’s death.
9.  On 13 July 2006 the applicants were officially recognised as aggrieved parties in the criminal proceedings.
10.  Between May 2006 and April 2007 the police conducted two technical and two medical forensic expert examinations, on-site traffic accident reconstructions, questioned S., the applicants and several other witnesses.
11.  From April 2007 until October 2009 the investigation was terminated on numerous occasions for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of S. Subsequently it was resumed by the investigator (in November 2007) or the above decisions were quashed by higher Prosecutor’s Office, due to various omissions in the investigation and with instructions to carry out further actions with a view to collecting evidence.
12.  On several occasions the criminal investigation was suspended because it was not possible to establish a person liable for the traffic accident.
13.  During the above period the police investigator examined several witnesses (including B. on 7 September 2009) and conducted one reconstruction.
14.  Between September 2010 and March 2012 the police conducted three additional technical forensic expert examinations, several on-site traffic accident reconstructions and questioned several witnesses. On several occasions the criminal investigation was suspended because of S.’s illness.
15.  On 5 October 2010 S. was for the first time officially recognised as a suspect in the criminal proceedings.
16.  On 26 March 2012 the case was referred to the Komsomolsk Court.
17.  On 4 April 2013 the Komsomolsk Court, having established that S. had committed the crime of negligence, amnestied him and left unexamined the applicants’ civil claim.
18.  On 25 June and 31 October 2013 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the judgment of 4 April 2013.
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 71256/11) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Hungarian nationals, Mr László Haraszthy, Mr György László Márton, Mr Gábor Horn, Ms Nóra Siska, Mr Zoltán Pintér and Ms  Mária  Terézia  Oszter (“the applicants”), on 11 November 2011. 2.  The applicants were represented by Mr I. P. Horváth, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice. 3.  On 31 August 2015 the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the imposition of 98% tax on their severance payment were communicated to the Government. 4.  On 9 November 2015 and 4 January 2016 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the Government and by five applicants under which these five applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to their complaints against an undertaking by the Government to pay Mr László Haraszthy EUR 12,800 (twelve thousand eight hundred euros), Mr Görgy László Márton EUR 3,200 (three thousand two hundred euros), Mr Gábor Horn EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), Ms Nóra Siska EUR 5,300 (five thousand three hundred euros) and Mr Zoltán Pintér EUR 7,100 (seven thousand one hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case in respect of these five applicants. 5.  The sixth applicant, Ms Mária Terézia Oszter was born in 1949 and lives in Budakeszi. From 1 July 1997 she was employed at the State-owned National Asset Management Ltd. Her employment was terminated on 30 May 2011. A certain part of her severance payment was subject to special tax at a 98% rate. Accordingly, special tax was levied on her severance payment in the amount of HUF 2,195,835 (approximately EUR 7,300).
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kyiv.
5.  On 30 June 2004 the Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv found that the applicant had committed the following crimes: appropriation of private property by means of fraud or abuse of trust, theft of property and theft of official documents. The court sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment suspended for three years with probation.
6.  On 23 December 2004 the applicant’s conviction was upheld by the Kyiv Court of Appeal. She appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court.
7.  On 31 May 2005 a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court considered the applicant’s appeal on points of law in accordance with Article 394 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (by virtue of which it could either dismiss the appeal or assign the case for further consideration with the participation of all the parties). The Supreme Court did not notify the applicant or her lawyer of that hearing. The prosecutor was present and made oral representations during the hearing. Having regard to his opinion and the material in the case file, the panel dismissed the appeal as unsubstantiated.
8.  In a letter dated 12 September 2005 the Supreme Court notified the applicant, enclosing a copy of its decision. She received the letter on 16 September 2005.
5.  The applicants, who are husband and wife, were born in 1932 and 1926, respectively, and live in Bat-Yam, Israel.
6.  In 1990s the applicants emigrated from the USSR to Israel and obtained Israeli nationality. Before emigrating, they were receiving old-age pensions from the Soviet authorities. Once the applicants left the USSR, the payments were discontinued in accordance with the USSR pension law in force at the material time.
7.  On 4 August 2006 the applicants brought civil proceedings against the competent regional department of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (Пенсионный Фонд Российской Федерации) (hereinafter “the Pension Fund”) seeking reinstatement of their right to the pension payments.
8.  On 4 December 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan found in the applicants’ favour and ordered the Pension Fund to set up monthly pension payments backdated to 15 June 1998.
9.  On 12 January 2007 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became binding and enforceable.
10.  On 10 July 2007 the Pension Fund lodged an application for supervisory review, seeking to have the judgments quashed. The application was addressed to the President of the Supreme Court.
11.  On 27 July 2007 a judge of the Supreme Court requested the case file from the District Court and subsequently suspended enforcement of the judgment of 4 December 2006.
12.  On 4 December 2007 another judge of the Supreme Court sent the case for supervisory review to the Astrakhan Regional Court.
13.  On 22 January 2008 the Astrakhan Regional Court dismissed the supervisory review application and endorsed the judgment of 4 December 2006, as upheld on 12 January 2007.
14.  On 8 April 2008 the Pension Fund lodged another application for supervisory review, again addressed to the President of the Supreme Court.
15.  On 24 June 2008 a judge of the Supreme Court sent the case for supervisory review by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.
16.  On 1 August 2008 the Civil Chamber of Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 4 December 2006, as upheld on 12 January 2007, and rejected the applicants’ claims.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970.
5.  On 13 February 2009 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of using drugs and providing drugs to third persons.
6.  On 16 February 2009 the applicant’s statement was taken by the Istanbul Assize Court and she was released on the same day. On 19 February 2009 the public prosecutor lodged an objection to this decision and on 23 February 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant.
7.  On 24 February 2009 the applicant was placed in detention on remand.
8.  On 4 April 2009 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with using drugs and providing drugs to third persons under Articles 188 § 3, 188 § 4 and 191 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
9.  On 15 May 2009 and 24 June 2009 respectively the Istanbul Assize Court on the basis of the case file dismissed release requests lodged by the applicant. On 9 June 2009 and 21 July 2009 respectively the Istanbul Assize Court further dismissed the objections lodged by the applicant against the above-mentioned decisions, without holding oral hearings.
10.  On 1 October 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court held its first hearing and the applicant appeared before the court. On the same day the trial court released the applicant.
4.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1976, 1973, 1983 and 1987 respectively. At the time of the application they were being held in detention in Buca F‑Type prison in İzmir.
5. On 23 July 2007 the İzmir Assize Court decided to restrict access to the investigation file, under Article 153 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the “CCP”), Law no. 5271.
6.  On 24 July 2007 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of being members of a criminal organisation.
7.  On 27 July 2007 the applicants were questioned by the investigating judge, in the presence of their lawyer. According to their statements to the judge, the applicants denied being involved with the criminal organisation. They did not deny that they had had telephone conversations that had been intercepted, or that they had accepted the transfer of parcels and had possessed firearms, all of which were deemed to be evidence of making threats, of fraud and of smuggling, the offences that they were suspected of having committed.
8.  On 1 August 2007 the applicants’ representative objected to the order for the pre‑trial detention in respect of the first four applicants. The representative also applied for their release pending trial on 3 February 2008, 11 February 2008 and 13 February 2008 respectively. Those applications were dismissed by the İzmir Assize Court on 4 February 2008, 11 February 2008 and 14 February 2008 respectively based the nature of the criminal charges and the state of the evidence. No hearing was held.
9.  On 13 March 2008 the public prosecutor at the İzmir Assize Court filed an indictment, charging the first applicant with establishing a criminal organisation and the other applicants with being members of a criminal organisation. The applicants were further charged with committing fraud, making threats, and carrying out raids and smuggling, under Article 220 and other related articles of the Criminal Code.
10.  On 17 March 2008 the trial court held an interlocutory session and, in the absence of the applicants, decided to extend their pre-trial detention. The first hearing was scheduled for 24 June 2008.
11.  On 2 May 2008 the applicants’ representative objected to that decision in respect of the first four applicants and applied for them to be released. On 7 May 2008 the İzmir Assize Court dismissed the objection. The applicants’ representative appealed. On 9 May 2008 the appeal court dismissed the appeal without holding an oral hearing.
12.  On 24 June 2008 İzmir Assize Court held the first hearing as planned and the applicants appeared before the court. The trial court decided to release the applicants from pre-trial detention on the same day.