coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Ufa.
5.  On 26 December 2006 a new block of flats was commissioned by the Town of Ufa at 66/2, Ulitsa Kommunarov, Ufa.
6.  According to the documents submitted by U. to state registration authorities, on 19 July 2010 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Ufa recognised his title to the flat at 66/2-39, Ulitsa Kommunarov, Ufa. The state registration authorities registered U.’s title.
7.  On 30 October 2010 U. sold the flat to M. On 22 November 2010 the state registration authorities registered the said transaction and M.’s title to the flat.
8.  On 12 February 2011 Z., acting on M.’s behalf by virtue of the power of attorney, and the applicant signed a contract according to which A. sold the flat to the applicant. Z. and the applicant submitted the documents for the registration of the transaction and the transfer of the title to the flat to the applicant.
9.  According to the applicant, she paid the amount due under the contract to Z. and moved into the flat while her application for the registration of the transfer of the title to the flat to her was still pending.
10.  On an unspecified date a third party brought a civil action challenging U.’s sale of the flat to M. and the latter’s title to the flat.
11.  On 28 February 2011 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Ufa issued an injunction in respect of the transactions with the flat.
12.  On 3 March 2011 the state registration authorities informed the applicant that her application for the registration of the transfer of the title to the flat could not be granted pending the outcome of the civil proceedings concerning the title to the flat.
13.  On 24 December 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan dismissed the third party’s claims in respect of the flat in full.
14.  On an unspecified date the Housing Foundation of the Republic of Bashkortostan brought a civil claim seeking, inter alia, the invalidation of M.’s title to the flat and the applicant’s eviction.
15.  On 23 August 2013 the District Court granted the claims in full. It invalidated the purchase of the flat by M. and ordered the applicant’s eviction. The court considered that the applicant had not acquired the title to the flat and had no legal basis for moving into the flat and residing there.
16.  On 7 November 2013 the Supreme Court of Republic of Bashkortostan upheld the judgment of 23 August 2013 on appeal.
17.  On 12 May 2014 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal.
18.  On 28 August 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicant’s second cassation appeal.
19.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the District Court to stay the eviction proceedings. She submitted that the flat had been her only place of residence and that, in view of her financial situation, she was unable to buy or rent another flat. On 24 March 2014 the District Court stayed the eviction proceedings for three months.
20.  On 24 February 2015 the applicant was evicted.
6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Tolyatti. The applicant is the widow of Mr Vitaliy Sergeyevich Postnov.
7.  On 5 December 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk (“the District Court”) ordered the Administration of the Ulyanovsk Region to pay Mr Postnov 228,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in reimbursement of costs for purchase of housing. The amount was to be paid from the federal budget funds allocated for housing of the military servicemen. The District Court further awarded Mr Postnov RUB 810, the cost of the expert examination.
8.  On 15 December 2000 the decision of the District Court came into force.
9.  In January 2001 Mr Postnov obtained two writs of execution and forwarded them to the bailiffs’ service in Ulyanovsk.
10.  On 26 April 2002 Mr Postnov passed away.
11.  On 16 June 2003 the applicant joined the enforcement proceedings in her late husband’s stead, pursuant to a domestic court’s decision.
12.  In 2003 the applicant and the bailiff in charge of the enforcement proceedings applied for changing the method of execution of the judgment of 5 December 2000. They argued that as the Administration of the Ulyanovsk Region had no authority to administer the federal budget funds, the judgment could not be enforced as prescribed in its operative part.
13.  On 25 November 2003 the District Court refused the application for changing the method of execution.
14.  On 22 December 2004 the writ of execution in respect of RUB 228,000 was returned to the applicant from the bailiffs’ service without enforcement.
15.  On 30 January 2005 the judgment of the District Court in the part concerning RUB 810 was enforced.
16.  On 13 November 2003, 13 July 2004, and 20 May 2005 the District Court index-linked the amount due to the applicant under the judgment of 5 December 2000, and awarded her RUB 169,846.46, RUB 17,401.28, and RUB 36,517.69 respectively. These amounts were to be paid from the federal budget funds allocated for housing of the military servicemen. The decisions came into force.
17.  In June 2005 the applicant obtained the writs of execution in respect of the three above decisions, and a new writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 5 December 2000 due to the change of the creditor in the enforcement proceedings (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above).
18.  On 31 May 2006 the applicant submitted all the writs of execution to the bailiffs’ service.
19.  On 2 June 2006 the bailiffs initiated the execution proceedings. On 6 June 2006 the proceedings were terminated. The writs of execution were returned to the applicant as the compulsory enforcement of the judicial decisions in question was impossible.
20.  In 2005-2006 the applicant submitted the enforcement documents to the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Federal Treasury Department for the Ulyanovsk Region. Each time the writs of execution were returned to the applicant without enforcement.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Hadžići.
6.  On 22 November 2011 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of having committed war crimes against the civilian population and against prisoners of war during the 1992-95 war.
7.  On 23 November 2011 the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the State Court”) reviewed and extended his detention based on the risk of his obstructing the course of justice by exerting pressure on witnesses and co-accused or by destroying evidence. On 1 December 2011 that decision was upheld by the Appeals Chamber of the State Court.
8.  On 21 December 2011 the State Court further extended the applicant’s detention on the same grounds as before. On 5 January 2012 that decision was upheld by the Appeals Chamber of the State Court.
9.  On 29 December 2011 the State Prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant and seven other co-suspects, which was confirmed by the State Court on 10 January 2012.
10.  Thereafter, the applicant’s detention was regularly examined and extended every two months by the State Court. In addition to those automatic reviews, the applicant repeatedly challenged his detention before the Appeals Chamber of the State Court.
11.  On 23 February 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, relying on Article II § 3.(d) of the Constitution (see paragraph 16 below) and Article 5 of the Convention. He alleged, in particular, that his detention had been arbitrary and excessive, and that it had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
12.  On 13 July 2012 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”), in a formation of eight judges, rejected the applicant’s appeal since it could not reach a majority on any of the proposals. The court’s reasoning included all the views expressed at the session on the issues raised in the case. Pursuant to Article VI § 4 of the Constitution (see paragraph 16 below) that decision was final.
13.  On 1 November 2012 the State Court held that the grounds for the applicant’s continued detention had ceased to apply and released the applicant. By the same decision, the court imposed preventive measures on the applicant which included the following: a prohibition on leaving his place of residence without the prior approval of the State Court save for the purpose of appearing before that court; the duty to report once a week to the Hadžići police; a prohibition on associating with other co-accused and on associating or having contact with the witnesses. Furthermore, the applicant’s passport was seized.
14.  The preventive measures were reviewed and extended every two months. On 16 December 2015 they were revoked.
15.  At the date of the latest information available to the Court (22 July 2016), the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still ongoing.
5.  The first applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Leverkusen, Germany. She is the daughter of the second and third applicants who were born in 1943 and 1942 respectively and lived in Tambov, Russia. The second applicant Ms Galina Zabelina died in 2013.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 25 April 2007 Mr P.Z., the brother of the first applicant and the son of the second and third applicants, was charged with large-scale fraud; his name was placed on the list of fugitives from justice. He was accused of embezzling the assets of the companies under his management. The wronged companies filed a claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage.
8.  On 12 May 2007 a senior operational officer from the Federal Security Service sent a letter to the investigator in charge of P.Z.’s case to inform him that “according to the available information, the real estate property owned by [the first applicant] (four flats) and by [the second applicant] (one flat) had been purchased at the expense of their close relative P.Z.”
9.  On 22 May 2007 the investigator asked the Basmannyy District Court in Moscow to authorise attachment of the applicants’ property, including three flats owned by the first applicant, a flat owned by the second applicant, and a car owned by the third applicant. He referred to undisclosed sources allegedly confirming that all that property had been purchased by P.Z.
10.  On 24 May 2007 the District Court issued the requested writs of attachment. It observed that, “according to the information from the investigation”, P.Z. had used the stolen money to purchase the property which he had registered in the name of his family members. It considered therefore necessary to attach the property which the District Court described as being owned by P.Z. The District Court explained that the application for writs was to be granted because “it [had been] lodged in the framework of a criminal case by the competent official and with the prosecutor’s approval, it [was] well-reasoned and [complied] with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure”.
11.  The applicants filed an appeal. They produced evidence showing that they had paid for the impugned property out of their pocket and that the link to P.Z. was the investigator’s conjecture without basis in fact. They were not defendants in any criminal proceedings or respondents in any civil claim and there were no legal grounds for attaching their property.
12.  On 13 August 2007 the Moscow City Court rejected their appeals, stating that the District Court had “carefully reviewed the materials enclosed with the investigator’s request and reached the justified conclusion that there were sufficient grounds for seizing” the listed property.
13.  The attachment of the applicants’ property has remained in place to date.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bor.
6.  The applicant was employed by the bank called Borska banka AD, (“the debtor”). It would appear that at the relevant time the debtor was predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.
7.  On 13 February 2004 the Zaječar Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor.
8.  On 8 February 2005, upon a submission to that effect, the Zaječar Commercial Court recognised the applicant’s claims concerning salary arrears.
9. On an unspecified date the applicant was paid 8,533 Serbian dinars (RSD) on account of the debt in question. The remainder of the debt has not been paid until the present day.
10.  The insolvency proceedings are still pending.
11.  On 14 December 2006 the applicant applied to the Zaječar Commercial Court for enforcement of the court’s decision of 8 February 2005, by which the applicant’s claims were recognised. The Zaječar Commercial Court, however, declined its jurisdiction ratione materiae and transferred the case file to the Bor Municipal Court.
12.  On 7 May 2007 the Bor Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s enforcement request. In its reasoning, the Court stated that the Commercial Court’s decision of 8 February 2005 was not suitable for execution.
13.  On 23 November 2007 the Zaječar District Court upheld the first instance court’s decision, stating that the debtor had been subject to the pending insolvency proceedings.
14.  On 18 March 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the Zaječar District Court’s decision.
15.  On 4 November 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal. It found that the applicant had failed to properly seize the Constitutional Court, having lodged her appeal against “the wrong” decision.
4.  In a dispute between the applicant and the domestic pension authorities, on 18 February 2011 the Kryviy Rih Dovgyntsivskyy District Court ruled in his favour, ordering an increase of his pension based on the rise in the average wages in the country since his retirement. The court sat in camera.
5.  On 3 November 2011 the first-instance court amended the judgment at the applicant’s request, indicating that it was enforceable immediately. In doing so, the court referred to the provision of the Code of Administrative Justice governing abridged procedure (see paragraph 11 below).
6.  The defendant pension authority appealed to the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”).
7.  On 23 November 2011 the first-instance court informed the applicant that an appeal had been lodged in his case. On 29 February 2012 he wrote to the Court of Appeal, requesting to be informed about the date of the hearing of his case. According to him, he received no response and no further information about the proceedings until 22 February 2013 when he received the Court of Appeal’s final decision, dated 26 June 2012, quashing the first-instance court’s judgment.
8.  It can be seen from the material before the Court that the applicant’s domestic case file contains copies of the ruling of the Court of Appeal’s judge (date illegible) opening appeal proceedings in his case and a notification letter dated February 2012 from the court clerk informing him of the upcoming examination of his case in camera on 26 June 2012 and stating that the judge’s ruling and a copy of the appeal were enclosed with the letter. The Government alleged that the above documents had been sent to the applicant, while the applicant alleged that they had not. The file does not contain any postal documents or registers of sent correspondence showing that the above documents had been sent or delivered to the applicant.
9.  On 26 June 2012 the Court of Appeal, in a final decision not amenable to appeal, quashed the first-instance court’s judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claim for a pension increase and holding that the domestic law did not require the pensions to be increased in case of rise in the average wages in the country following retirement. The court sat in camera.
5.  The applicants lived in a dormitory in Lipetsk, Russia. The dormitory was mainly inhabited by the students and the staff of the Lipetsk Metallurgy College (“the College”).
6.  In 2000 the joint-stock company “NLMK” (“the Company”) registered its title over that dormitory as a result of privatisation.
7.  The applicants brought a case against the Company seeking to obtain a title to the rooms they lived in. They argued in particular that the privatisation of the dormitory had taken place in violation of the legislation and that the Company could not be declared as a sole owner of the property. The Lipetsk Metallurgy College was also involved into the case as a third party.
8.  On 19 April 2010 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk found for the applicants and granted their claims. The District Court found that the dormitory was transferred to the Company in breach of domestic law.
9.  On 2 June 2010 the appeal court upheld the judgment and it became final.
10.  In August 2010 the applicants registered their title to the dormitory rooms and subsequently sold them to third parties.
11.  On 12 April 2011 the Company lodged a request with the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk seeking to reopen the proceedings on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances. It relied on the order of the College’s director and a lease agreement concluded in 2008 between the Company and the College in respect of the dormitory. The Company further argued that it had not been aware of those documents since they were possessed by the College.
12.  On 12 May 2011 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk quashed the judgment of 19 April 2010. The court found in particular that the documents presented by the Company might have had significant impact on the outcome of the case and thus they constituted “newly discovered circumstances”.
13.  On 31 August 2011 as a result of the fresh consideration of the case the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk rejected the applicants’ claims and ordered reversal of execution of the judgment of 19 April 2010. This judgment was upheld on 26 October 2011 by the Lipetsk Regional Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest.
6.  On 14 April 2010 the applicant notified the police that he planned to organise a demonstration from 2 to 7 p.m. on 17 April 2010 in front of the Venyige Street prison in Budapest, in order to draw attention to the “situation of political prisoners”. Venyige Street is a broad cul-de-sac with a service lane.
7.  On 16 April 2010 the head of the Budapest Police Department banned the demonstration on the grounds that traffic could not be diverted to alternative routes (section 8(1) of the Assembly Act). In the decision, he referred to Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 11 of the Convention and Decision no. 55/2001.AB of the Constitutional Court.
8.  On 19 April 2010, within the statutory time-limit, the applicant sought a judicial review of the decision.
9.  On 22 April 2010 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s case. It noted that in assessing whether or not traffic could be diverted to other routes, the authority had reckoned on the participation of some 200 demonstrators, as per the applicant’s notification, and that – after having obtained the opinion of a traffic expert – it had established that lawful parking and traffic circulation in the neighbourhood would become impossible should the event take place. The court agreed with the police’s decision in that although the right to assembly was a constitutional fundamental right, it was not absolute and must not give rise to a violation of the fundamental rights of others, and could therefore be restricted. The court was satisfied that the decision had been lawful as the police had adequately established the facts, complied with the procedural rules and applied clear assessment criteria, and the assessment of the evidence had been logical.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Donji Kraljevec.
5.  On 15 October 2001 the applicant brought a civil action against a private person in the Čakovec Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Čakovcu) seeking that a contract for lifelong maintenance (ugovor o doživotnom uzdržavanju) be declared null and void, that certain entries in the land register be altered, and that certain property be included in his deceased father’s estate. At the first hearing of the trial, the applicant indicated the value of the claim at 101,000 Croatian kunas (HRK).
6.  On 4 February 2005 the Čakovec Municipal Court declared the applicant’s action inadmissible. The applicant lodged an appeal against the first-instance decision. On 12 May 2005 the Čakovec County Court (Županijski sud u Čakovcu) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision.
7.  The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court. On 19 April 2006 the Supreme Court accepted the applicant’s appeal on points of law, examined it on the merits and quashed the decisions of the lower courts and ordered a fresh consideration of the case.
8.  On 17 February 2009, in the fresh proceedings, the first-instance court gave judgment in the applicant’s favour.
9.  The defendant, T.B., lodged an appeal and on 10 June 2010 the Čakovec County Court reversed the first-instance judgment.
10.  The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law. On 21 September 2011 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris because it fell below the threshold of 100,000 Croatian kunas, given that the applicant’s civil action had included three separate claims lodged on different factual and legal bases – therefore, the amount of the claim had to be divided into three. The Supreme Court did not provide any reasoning as to why it had accepted as admissible the applicant’s previous appeal on points of law and decided on the merits.
11.  A constitutional complaint subsequently lodged by the applicant was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on 12 January 2012.