Datasets:

coastalcph
/

lex_glue

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Subset (7)

ecthr_a · 11k rows

Split (3)

train · 9k rows

text sequence	labels sequence
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Moscow.", "5. In July 1996 the applicant sued his former employer, a private company, for wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.", "6. On 31 January and 4 December 1997 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow issued judgments in the applicant’s action which were subsequently quashed on appeal.", "7. The applicant amended his claims seeking reinstatement because he had been meanwhile dismissed.", "8. Between 13 July 1998 and 18 May 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow listed thirteen hearings, of which the hearing on 13 July 1998 was adjourned due to the applicant’s absence and eight hearings were adjourned so as to give time to his former employer to produce additional evidence or to read materials submitted by the applicant. The hearings of 3 and 18 March 1999 were adjourned due to the employer’s absence.", "9. On 8 June 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow allowed the applicant’s claim in part.", "10. On an unspecified date the applicant complained about the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment of 8 June 1999. On 17 November 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow confirmed that the bailiffs had failed to comply with the domestic time-limit for the enforcement of judgments.", "11. On 26 November 1999 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 8 June 1999. The judgments remained unenforced.", "12. On 14 December 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 8 June and 26 November 1999 and remitted the case to a differently composed bench.", "13. On 23 January 2001 the President of the Nikulinskiy District Court assigned the case to a judge.", "14. Of nineteen hearings scheduled between 7 February 2001 and 19 December 2002 two hearings were adjourned on the applicant’s request. Six hearings were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to attend and five hearings were postponed as to give the defendant time to submit additional evidence. Three hearings were adjourned because the presiding judge was on leave or was involved in other proceedings.", "15. On 22 January 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow reinstated the applicant, awarded him the arrears and a partial compensation for non-pecuniary damage.", "16. On 28 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.", "17. On 6 March 2003 bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings.", "18. On 15 April 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow, upon the bailiff’s request, stayed the enforcement proceedings pending clarification of the judgment of 22 January 2003.", "19. The applicant complained to a court that the judgment of 22 January 2003, as upheld on 28 July 2003, had not been enforced. On 13 August 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the complaint holding that the enforcement proceedings had been lawfully stayed.", "20. On 4 September 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow clarified the judgment of 22 January 2003, as upheld on 28 July 2003, and held that the applicant had to be immediately reinstated in his previous position. The court resumed the enforcement proceedings.", "21. On 9 February 2004 the employer issued an order reinstating the applicant in his previous position. On 17 February 2004 the applicant asked the employer to grant him annual leave for all years of absence since 1996 and to dismiss him after the leave.", "22. On 19 February 2004 the bailiffs asked the court to stay the enforcement until the applicant would return from his leave.", "23. On 14 April 2004 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow stayed the proceedings until the end of the applicant’s leave. The applicant appealed against that decision on 7 June 2004.", "24. On 15 June 2004 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow disallowed the appeal because the applicant had missed the time-limit for lodging it." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1995 and lives in Prešov.", "5. On 18 September 1996 the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd) pronounced the dissolution of the marriage of the applicant's parents. The applicant who suffers from serious health problems which necessitate constant care was entrusted to her mother. The father was ordered to contribute financially to the applicant's maintenance. The judgment became final and binding on 25 August 1997.", "6. On 18 March 1998 the applicant, acting through her mother, lodged a petition with the District Court. She sought judicial enforcement of a claim against her father to an amount of money which was due by way of contribution to her maintenance.", "7. On 14 April 1998 the District Court ordered the enforcement.", "8. On 21 January 2002 the District Court discontinued the enforcement as regards a part of the claim as the defendant had paid it voluntarily.", "9. On 22 April 2002, on the applicant's appeal, the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the decision of 21 January 2002 finding that the District Court had erred in the ruling on the costs of the enforcement.", "10. On 10 June 2003 the District Court again discontinued the enforcement as the defendant had paid his debt. The decision became final and binding on 3 July 2003.", "11. On 9 August 1999 the applicant, acting through her mother, lodged a request with the District Court that the amount of contributions to her maintenance which her father had been ordered to pay in the above judgment of 18 September 1996 be increased.", "12. On 2 February 2001 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant's mother claimed an increase in the amount.", "13. On 23 May 2002 the District Court increased the amount of the monthly contributions and decided that it should apply from 1 July 1999 onwards. The District Court authorised the defendant to pay the arrears for the period from 1 July 1999 to 31 May 2002 in monthly instalments in addition to the ordinary monthly payments. In so far as the applicant was claiming contributions of a higher amount, the District Court dismissed the remainder of her claim. Both parties appealed to the Regional Court.", "14. On 26 September 2002 the Regional Court upheld the part of the District Court's judgment of 23 May 2002 in which it had granted the applicant's action. At the same time, the Regional Court quashed the part of the District Court's judgment in which it had dismissed the remainder of the action, considering that such a dismissal was superfluous. The ruling became final, binding and enforceable on 23 October 2002.", "15. On 13 November 2002 the applicant, through her mother, filed a petition for enforcement of the judgments of 23 May and 26 September 2002.", "16. On 3 December 2002 the District Court ordered the enforcement. It is still pending.", "17. On 28 August 2000 the applicant's mother, on behalf of the applicant, lodged a petition (podnet) under Article 130 § 3 of the Constitution, as then in force, with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd).\nShe complained of the undue delays in the above enforcement and judicial proceedings and also in two other sets of proceedings.", "18. On 17 May 2001 the Constitutional Court found, inter alia, that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay in both cases. The subject‑matters of those proceedings were not of a particular legal or factual complexity. The applicant's conduct did not give rise to any delay and her situation called for special diligence. All the proceedings under review were too lengthy in their entirety. However, at that time, the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to draw any legal consequences from its finding. In accordance with its established practice, when deciding on a fresh constitutional complaint (sťažnosť) under Article 127 of the Constitution, as amended from January 2002, the Constitutional Court refrains from examining again delays in court proceedings which occurred in the period which the Constitutional Court had already reviewed in a previous decision." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicants were born in 1958 and 1953 respectively and live in Füzérkomlós, Hungary.", "5. On 20 October 1995 the applicants brought an action in trespass against their neighbours before the Miskolc District Court. The court held nine hearings between 14 February 1996 and 5 January 1998 and obtained an expert opinion. On 15 June 1998 the court partly accepted the applicants' claims.", "6. On appeal, on 4 February 1999 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court gave a partial decision. It upheld part of the first-instance decision, but quashed the remainder and remitted the case to the District Court. It appears that the applicants' repeated efforts to have the Regional Court's decision enforced were to no avail.", "7. In the resumed proceedings before the District Court, hearings took place on 12 July, 6 September, 4 October, 14 December 1999, 19 January and 9 March 2000. On 3 May 2000 the District Court ordered that the proceedings be stayed under section 137 § 1 (b) of the Code on Civil Procedure because the applicants failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for that date.", "8. On 8 September 2000 the applicants requested that the proceedings be continued.", "9. Meanwhile, on 23 April 1999 the applicants filed a petition for the review by the Supreme Court of the partial decision of 4 February 1999.\nThe Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer, who subsequently had to be replaced twice at the applicants' request.\nOn 30 November 2000 the Supreme Court eventually rejected the petition as inadmissible, without examining it on the merits, since the applicants had, despite warning, failed to contact the legal-aid lawyer and were therefore not properly represented before the Supreme Court.", "10. In the pending proceedings before the District Court, the applicants were repeatedly requested to clarify their claims at the hearings of 2 and 9 May 2001.", "11. At the applicants' request, on 10 July 2001 the District Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer.", "12. In its order of 30 November 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the pending claims. On appeal, on 1 March 2002 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed the first-instance order and remitted the file to the District Court.", "13. In the resumed proceedings, the applicants requested the District Court to hold a hearing in their absence because they felt that their presence at the previous hearings had been useless.", "14. At the hearing on 24 September 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicants' claims. In the absence of an appeal, this decision became final on 25 November 2003.", "15. In 1999 the representative of the building, in which the applicants lived, brought an action against them claiming overdue charges.\nOn 9 June 1999 the Miskolc District Court partly accepted the plaintiff's claims. On 16 December 1999 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal. On 11 April 2001 the Supreme Court's review bench refused to grant leave to appeal.\nIn similar proceedings, on 10 December 2001 the Sátoraljaújhely District Court partly accepted some further claims for overdue charges. On 4 April 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "5. The applicant company was incorporated as a limited liability company on 27 December 1995 by decision of the Kaspi District Court, Georgia. The second applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Tbilisi.", "6. On 23 July 1998, the second applicant, in his capacity as founder and director of the construction company “Iza” Ltd, the applicant company, signed a building repair contract with a State school. The contract provided for the transfer of 117,514 Georgian Laris (“GEL”, EUR 53,892.50)[1] from the budget of the Ministry of Education onto the account of the applicant company. In exchange, the applicant company would perform repairs to the school.", "7. Despite the fact that, by August 1998, the applicant company had already done some of the repairs, equivalent to 13,000 GEL (EUR 5,965)1 the Ministry of Education only transferred 5,800 GEL (EUR 2,661)1 to the company's account.", "8. The tax authorities initiated proceedings against the applicant company and the second applicant personally, demanding taxes in the amount of 30,735 GEL (EUR 14,104)1. According to the applicants' submissions, the tax claim was based on the total payment due for the work performed under the contract of 23 July 1998, whilst, in reality, the applicant company only received partial payment.", "9. On 23 January 2001, the Kaspi District Court partially upheld the claim of the tax authorities. While dismissing the tax claim of 26,388 GEL (EUR 12,106)1 towards the applicant company as being unsubstantiated, the District Court, in view of the second applicant's recognition of his company's indebtedness before the State budget as of 22 April 1998 (well before the signing of the contract with the Ministry of Education), ordered the second applicant personally to pay the VAT debt of 4,347 GEL (EUR 1,994)1.", "10. As the remaining sum for the work performed under the contract of 23 July 1998 was not paid by the Ministry of Education and the tax debt of the second applicant was outstanding, according to the applicants' submissions, the applicant company could hardly continue its economic activity.", "11. The applicant company, represented by the second applicant, brought proceedings against the Ministry of Education claiming the remaining 7,200 GEL (EUR 3,304)1 for the performed work, as well as the second applicant's tax debt of 4,347 GEL (EUR 1,994)1, given the Ministry's failure to meet its contractual obligations. By a judgment of 14 May 2001, the Didube-Chughureti District Court granted the applicant company's claims in full.", "12. There was no appeal against the judgment of 14 May 2001, which therefore acquired binding force on 14 June 2001. Based on that judgment, on 2 July 2001, the District Court issued an order obliging the Ministry of Education to pay the applicant company 11,628 GEL (EUR 5,332)[2]. However, the order remained unexecuted.", "13. On 19 April 2002, the second applicant, acting again on behalf of the applicant company, requested the Execution Department of the Ministry of Justice to comply with the judgment of 14 May 2001. In response, on 13 May 2002, the Head of the Department explained that the enforcement of judgments against the State budget institutions still remained one of the most difficult tasks to accomplish for the Enforcement Authorities. No information was provided as to when exactly enforcement could be expected.", "14. On 29 October 2002, the second applicant again addressed the Ministry of Justice. This time he appealed directly to the Minister of Justice, demanding the immediate implementation of the decision. This demand went unanswered.", "15. On the same day, 29 October 2002, the second applicant applied to the Office of the Prosecutor General, requesting the initiation of criminal proceedings for the non-implementation of a binding judicial decision, as laid down in Article 381 of the Criminal Code. However, his request was dismissed on 27 December 2002; the Office of the Prosecutor did not find any intentional wrongdoing on the part of the authorities – the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice – commenting that the delay had an objective reason, namely the lack of finances in the State budget. Therefore nobody could be held criminally liable.", "16. On 10 November 2002, by the Notification No. 35 the Kaspi District Tax authorities imposed upon the applicant company the fine of 74,500 GEL (EUR 34,174)2 as an accrued penalty for the second applicant's outstanding tax debt of 4,347 GEL (EUR 1,994)2. However, following the applicant company's judicial dispute, the Kaspi Regional Court declared the notification null and void. This decision was upheld by the Tbilisi Regional Court on 5 May 2003; along with annulment of the notification, the court instructed the tax authorities to adopt a new administrative act after comprehensive re-examination and reassessment of the facts.", "17. On 24 August 2004, the Gori regional tax authorities issued a new notification imposing on the applicant company a fine of 17,061 GEL (EUR 7,825.81)2 for the same VAT debt of the second applicant. This notification was never challenged by the applicants and is still in force.", "18. The tax debt of the second applicant constitutes, at the same time, part of the judgment debt of 14 May 2001, which still has not been paid by the State, more than four years later.", "19. On 2 July 2004, the Government adopted an Ordinance introducing a mechanism for the gradual payment of outstanding debts (see paragraph 26 below)." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Prešov.", "5. In 1994 the applicant married Mr Š. with whom, in 1995, she had a daughter. Since October 1995 the applicant and Mr Š. had not lived in a common household.", "6. On 18 September 1996 the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd) pronounced the dissolution of the applicant's marriage, entrusted the child into the applicant's care and ordered Mr Š. To contribute to the child's maintenance. The judgment became final and binding on 25 August 1997.", "7. On 22 March 1996 the applicant lodged an action against Mr Š. with the District Court. She sought a judicial order that he contribute to her maintenance as his spouse pursuant to Articles 91 et seq. of the Family Code (Low no. 94/1963 Coll., as amended).", "8. On 29 April 1996, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court granted the action. Mr Š. subsequently lodged an appeal.", "9. On 18 February 1997, following a hearing on the appeal held on the same day, the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the District Court's judgment of 29 April 1996 in so far as it related to the period from 22 March to 31 May 1996. As to the following period, the Regional Court quashed the relevant part of the District Court's judgment and remitted the case to the latter for a re‑examination.", "10. The District Court held 3 hearings between October 1997 and August 1998.", "11. On 17 September 1998, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court dismissed the action as regards the outstanding period, i.e. from 1 June 1996 to 25 August 1997, when the applicant's divorce had become legally binding.", "12. On 30 April 1999, on the applicant's appeal, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 17 September 1998 and remitted the case to the District Court instructing it to take further evidence.", "13. On 13 March 2002 the District Court ruled that, in the relevant period, Mr Š. had been obliged to contribute to the applicant's maintenance. It further determined the amount payable and ordered that he pay the amount due in instalments as from 1 April 2002. The District Court also ordered reimbursement of the applicant's legal costs.", "14. On 11 September 2002 the Regional Court dismissed both parties' appeals.", "15. On 30 October 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the District Court. She sought a judicial order that her ex‑husband pay her, on a monthly basis, an amount of money by way of contribution to her maintenance after divorce, pursuant to Articles 92 et seq. of the Family Code, as she was unable to provide for herself alone.", "16. The District Court held hearings on 16 February and 30 March 1998.", "17. On 30 April 1998 the District Court took a decision in the action. On 30 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment on an appeal.", "18. On 16 June 1999 the District Court held a hearing.", "19. On 16 March 2000, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court dismissed the action.", "20. On 24 January 2001, on the applicant's appeal, the Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment of 16 March 2000 and remitted the case to the latter for re‑examination. The Regional Court found that, despite having been instructed to do so in the decision of 30 April 1999, the District Court had failed to examine the material situation of the defendant adequately.", "21. On 31 October 2002 the District Court ruled that the defendant had been obliged to contribute to the applicant's maintenance from 30 October 1997 onwards. The District Court further determined the amount payable each month and allowed the defendant to pay the arrears for the period from 30 October 1997 to 31 October 2002 in monthly instalments in addition to the ordinary monthly payments.", "22. On 23 June 2003, on the defendant's appeal, the Regional Court modified the judgment of 30 October 2002 by making a new detailed determination of the amounts which the defendant was to pay to the applicant in respect of the various periods. The judgment became final and binding on 29 July 2003.", "23. On 28 August 2000 the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, lodged a petition (podnet) under Article 130 § 3 of the Constitution, as then in force, with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). She complained of the undue delays in the above two sets of proceedings and also in two other sets of proceedings.", "24. On 17 May 2001 the Constitutional Court found, inter alia, that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay in her above actions of 1996 and 1997. The subject‑matters of those proceedings were not of a particular legal or factual complexity. The applicant's conduct was active and cooperative. The District Court had not dealt with the cases effectively. Both sets of proceedings under review were too lengthy in their entirety. However, at that time, the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to draw any legal consequences from the finding. In accordance with its established practice, when deciding on a fresh constitutional complaint (sťažnosť) under Article 127 of the Constitution, as amended from January 2002, the Constitutional Court refrains from examining again delays in court proceedings which occurred in the period which the Constitutional Court has already reviewed in a previous decision." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "7. The first applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Joensuu. He is a member of the Finnish Bar. The other 17 applicants were his clients at the relevant time (“the client applicants”).", "8. On 26 January 1999 the police conducted a search – it is not entirely clear of which premises – based on the suspicion that the first applicant's clients X and Y (not client applicants before the Court) had committed aggravated debtor's fraud. In the course of that search X managed to destroy the original of a promissory note which the police had attempted to seize and which may have been relevant to the financial arrangements underlying the suspected offence.", "9. At the time the first applicant's status in the investigation had been that of a witness. On 22 February 1999 the police requested him to attend for questioning in this capacity. This request was apparently cancelled before he had taken any action thereon.", "10. A police officer in charge of the criminal investigations granted a search warrant and on 2 March 1999 seven officers of the National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen), assisted by a tax inspector and an enforcement official (ulosottomies, utmätningsman), searched the first applicant's law office, flat and vehicles. This search warrant was likewise based on the suspicion that X and Y had committed aggravated debtor's fraud but the first applicant was now indicated as a suspect, namely that he had aided and abetted the offences by drafting certain documents.", "11. Under the terms of the warrant the search aimed at examining “the documents, computers and archives of the law office” as well as the first applicant's flat and vehicles “so as to investigate the share transactions by the limited liability company [H.] in 1998 and to find material relating to those transactions”.", "12. During the search of his law office all of the first applicant's client files were allegedly perused. The police also examined all floppy disks and examined his note books pertaining to his meetings with clients. In addition, the hard disks in the office computers were copied: two were copied on the spot and two computers, including the one used by the first applicant himself, were seized for later disk-copying on police premises. Those computers were returned on 4 March 1999.", "13. The first applicant's computer also contained software for electronic mail, including his private and professional messages.", "14. A fellow member of the Bar assisted the first applicant during part of the search.", "15. On 4 March 1999 the first applicant requested the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Joensuu to revoke the seizure as being unlawful. On 24 March 1999 the court nevertheless maintained it, noting that the first applicant was suspected of aiding and abetting aggravated debtor's dishonesty.", "16. On 11 May 1999 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Eastern Finland upheld the District Court's decision and on 25 November 1999 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the first applicant leave to appeal.", "17. On 4 May 1999 the police certified the return of three of the four hard disks and that they had destroyed any copies thereof. They stated however that they would retain a copy of the fourth hard disk until the lawfulness of the seizure had been finally decided or until the material could be destroyed for any other reason.", "18. In June 1999 three of the applicants (nos. 2-3 and 8) requested the District Court to revoke the seizure of the copy of the fourth hard disk (which contained material relating to their instructions to the first applicant) and to order the police to compensate their costs. They argued that the seizure had been unlawful from the outset. At any rate, the copy in question was of no relevance to the pre-trial investigation concerning X and Y.", "19. In its rejoinder the National Bureau of Investigation referred to the Court of Appeal's decision of 11 May 1999 in which the seizure had been found lawful. Moreover, the hard disks had only been subjected to a targeted search and they were able to search information concerning only relevant companies and individuals. Only the potentially relevant client files in the law office had been perused. The search and seizure had thus not been of wholesale nature. The tax and enforcement officials who had witnessed the search had been – and remained – under a duty to keep secret any information thereby obtained.", "20. On 17 June 1999 the District Court agreed with the three client applicants and ordered that the copy of the fourth hard disk be returned. It rejected, as not being based on law, the applicants' claim for compensation in respect of their costs. The applicants appealed on this point, whereas the police appealed against the revocation order.", "21. In its submissions to the Court of Appeal the National Bureau of Investigation listed the contents of the copied hard disk. For example, specific mention was made of what appears to have been the promissory note which the police had been looking for (and had found). The submissions indicated the debtor's and the creditor's names as well as the amount of the debt. The National Bureau of Investigation furthermore explained that the material on the relevant hard disk had been copied to a so-called optical disk which could in any case not be returned as it also contained internal police data. The submissions by the Bureau were apparently not ordered to be kept confidential.", "22. On 27 January 2000 the Court of Appeal declined to examine the parties' appeals, considering that the matter had been resolved res judicata in the first set of proceedings ending with the Supreme Court's decision of 25 November 1999. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the three client applicants in question.", "23. On 3 March 2000 the public prosecutor charged, among others, X and Y with aggravated debtor's dishonesty but decided to press no charges against the first applicant, having found no evidence of any crime.", "24. On 20 April 2001 the Supreme Court ruled that although a final decision had already been rendered in respect of another appellant, it did not prevent the courts from examining similar appeals filed by other parties. The case was referred back to the Court of Appeal which, on 4 October 2001, revoked the District Court's decision on the basis that the seizure had been lawful.", "25. The three client applicants in question were again granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On 18 October 2002 it revoked the seizure in so far as it pertained to information which those applicants had given to the first applicant.", "26. The Supreme Court found it undisputed that the copied hard disk contained information relating to the three client applicants' instructions to the first applicant. It had not been argued that this information was not protected by counsel's secrecy obligation under Chapter 17, section 23 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. Nor did the information in question pertain to any suspicion that the first applicant or any one else had committed a crime.", "27. The Supreme Court accepted that the police had been entitled by Chapter 4, section 1 of the Coercive Measures Act (pakkokeinolaki, tvångsmedelslagen 450/1987) to seize the first applicant's hard disk and make a copy thereof. Technical reasons and practical needs (the fact that the police had been obliged at the time of the search to copy the whole hard disk) did not however permit any deviation from the prohibition on seizure of privileged material. The police should therefore have returned the computer files immediately or destroyed them. The appellants were awarded reasonable compensation for their costs and expenses.", "28. On 11 November 2002 the Chief Enforcement Officer of Vantaa confirmed that the copy of the hard disk had been destroyed on that day.", "29. On 22 August 2003 the Deputy Chancellor of Justice (valtioneuvoston apulaisoikeuskansleri, justitiekansleradjointen i statsrådet) issued his decision in response to a petition by the Finnish Bar Association concerning, inter alia, the alleged unlawfulness of the coercive measures against the first applicant. He found it established that the tax inspector and the enforcement official had attended the search in their respective capacity as a witness and expert. He nevertheless concluded, inter alia, that from the point of view of foreseeability of domestic law, as required by Article 8 of the Convention, the relationship between the Coercive Measures Act (Chapter 4, section 2, subsection 2), the Code of Judicial Procedure (Chapter 17, section 23, subsection 1 (4)) and the Advocates Act (section 5 c) was somewhat unclear and permitted very diverging interpretations as to the extent to which privileged material could be subject to search and seizure. The Deputy Chancellor therefore requested the Ministry of Justice to consider whether there was a need to amend the relevant legislation." ]	[ 4 ]
[ "5. The first applicant, a limited liability company, was incorporated on 6 September 1995 by a decision of the Didube District Court of Tbilisi, Georgia. The second applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Tbilisi.", "6. In 1995 the Amat Shipping Company Limited and the second applicant founded a limited liability company called Amat-G, the applicant company, in Georgia. The second applicant was appointed general manager of that company.", "7. Amat-G imported fish products from African countries to Georgia. In the years 1996-98, the company paid more than 1,000,000 United States dollars (USD) (approximately 970,874 euros (EUR)[1]) to the State budget in taxes and was considered by the State Tax Department to be a “large tax payer”.", "8. In 1998-99 Amat-G supplied the Georgian Ministry of Defence with various types of fish products at different prices.", "9. However, the Ministry of Defence paid only part of the amount due to Amat-G.", "10. On 29 October 1999 the applicants brought civil proceedings against the Ministry of Defence in the Tbilisi Regional Court for breach of contract and consequential damage, claiming a total of 662,526 Georgian laris (GEL) (EUR 296,771).", "11. In a judgment of 6 December 1999, the Panel for Civil and Commercial Affairs of the Tbilisi Regional Court partly allowed the action of the applicant company, ordering the Ministry of Defence to pay the company compensation of GEL 254,188 (EUR 113,860).", "12. The judgment was never challenged and became binding on 6 January 2000.", "13. On 22 March 2000 the applicants appealed to the execution department of the Ministry of Justice, requesting the immediate enforcement of the judgment.", "14. On 23 March 2000 the enforcement officer of the execution department ordered the Ministry of Defence to pay the applicant company, voluntarily, within one month.", "15. Upon the expiry of that period, the enforcement officer initiated the forcible execution procedure against the Ministry of Defence. He sent the centre of expertise of the Ministry of Justice a list of non-military buildings that could be put up for sale by tender in order to discharge the debt. However, that was the only step taken and the judgment of 6 December 1999 remained unexecuted.", "16. On 10 July 2000 the Ministry of Defence appealed to the Tbilisi Regional Court, seeking a stay of execution of the judgment of 6 December 1999, in accordance with the provisions of Article 263 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Regional Court dismissed the ministry's request on 3 August 2000, concluding that “postponement of the enforcement would negatively affect the applicant company's interests and violate the principle of an equitable and adversarial hearing”. The ministry was consequently obliged to enforce the judgment without delay, yet it still failed to pay the debt.", "17. During the same period, Amat-G signed a contract with the Amat Shipping Company Corporation on 19 January 2000 for the lease of a ship at a monthly rate of USD 45,000 (EUR 43,689).", "18. On 20 January 2000 Amat-G contacted the Ministry of Defence, explaining that the money owed to it by the ministry was the only means which the applicant company had to pay for the lease of the ship. The applicant company waited eight months in vain to obtain payment of the debt from the Ministry of Defence. Meanwhile, the bill for the lease of the ship had risen to USD 511,200 (EUR 496,311). Amat-G also claimed that it had lost USD 1,344,421 (EUR 1,305,263) in business profits as a result of the ministry's failure to pay the debt on time. In addition, the applicant company faced a tax bill of GEL 41,213 (EUR 18,460).", "19. For these reasons, in September 2001 Amat-G brought an action before the Panel of Administrative Law and Taxation Affairs of the Tbilisi Regional Court against the Ministries of Defence, Justice and Finance, in order to hold them collectively responsible for the harm caused by the non-execution of the judgment of 6 December 1999, in accordance with Article 411 of the Civil Code. The company claimed damages of USD 1,855,621 (EUR 1,801,574) and GEL 41,213 (EUR 18,460).", "20. The Regional Court dismissed the claim on 20 February 2002 on the basis of the provisions of Article 412 of the Civil Code.", "21. On 10 July 2002 the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the applicant company's appeal against the Regional Court's decision of 20 February 2002.", "22. The judgment debt of 6 December 1999 has still not been paid, some five and a half years later." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "8. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Haarlem.", "9. The applicant worked as a freelance photographer from the mid-1970s until the early or mid-1980s, but developed pulmonary and psychiatric problems. On 15 December 1988 he applied to the New General Occupational Association (Nieuwe algemene bedrijfsvereniging – “the NAB”) for a disability pension under the General Labour Disability Act (Algemene Arbeidsongeschiktheidswet – “the AAW”).", "10. On 20 November 1989 the NAB gave a decision refusing the applicant such a pension on the ground that he had not at any time been unfit for work for fifty-two consecutive weeks, his disability having continued beyond such a period. The decision was signed on behalf of the NAB by the managing director of the Haarlem district branch of the Joint Administration Office (Gemeenschappelijk Administratiekantoor), per procurationem.", "11. On 18 December 1989 the applicant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal (Raad van Beroep), the administrative tribunal competent in social security cases at the time. During the course of the proceedings, he was subjected to various medical examinations.", "12. On 12 November 1991 the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal on the ground that he had been sufficiently fit for alternative work.", "13. On 22 November 1991 the applicant lodged a further appeal with the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep). He submitted his grounds of appeal on 18 May 1992.", "14. It seems that on 29 July 1993 the President of the Central Appeals Tribunal wrote to the management board of the NAB, asking whether the applicant, as a freelance photographer, was properly insured with their occupational association.", "15. On 9 December 1993 the NAB management board replied, acknowledging responsibility for the applicant from 1 November 1983 onwards but suggesting that from 1 September 1982 until 1 November 1983 the competent occupational association might have been the Occupational Association for the Banking and Insurance Sector, Wholesale Trade and Professions (Bedrijfsvereniging voor Bank- en Verzekeringswezen, Groothandel en Vrije Beroepen – “the OA Banks and Professions”).", "16. On 1 March 1994 the Central Appeals Tribunal quashed the NAB's decision on the ground that, in so far as it had included an assessment of the applicant's fitness for work between 1 September 1982 and 1 November 1983, it had been taken unlawfully; the competent occupational association during this period had been the OA Banks and Professions. The NAB was ordered to give a new decision taking this fact into account.", "17. The NAB never considered the case again.", "18. Even before the Central Appeals Tribunal's decision, on 14 January 1994 the OA Banks and Professions wrote to the applicant informing him that it was assuming responsibility for his social insurance for the period from 1 November 1975 until 1 November 1983. By a decision of the same date, it refused the applicant an AAW pension on the ground that he had not been unfit for work for fifty-two consecutive weeks between 1 November 1975 and 1 November 1983. This decision, like the NAB's decision of 20 November 1989, was signed per procurationem by the managing director of the Haarlem district branch of the Joint Administration Office.", "19. The applicant appealed to the Administrative Law Division of the Haarlem Regional Court – the regional courts having by then succeeded the appeals tribunals as the competent first-instance tribunals in social security matters – on 14 February 1994.", "20. The Regional Court held a hearing on 10 April 1997. The applicant's opponent was now the National Social Insurance Institute (Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen – “the LISV”), which, following a reorganisation of the social security implementing system earlier that year, had replaced the multitude of occupational associations.", "21. On 12 May 1997 the Regional Court gave a decision allowing the appeal and quashing the decision of 14 January 1994. It found that the OA Banks and Professions had acted ultra vires in considering the period before 1 September 1982. It ordered the LISV to give a fresh decision, and enjoined it now to show “some diligence” (“thans met enige voortvarendheid”).", "22. On 31 July 1997 the LISV informed the applicant that it would not appeal against the Regional Court's decision. It gave a new decision refusing the applicant an AAW pension on the ground that he had not at any time after 1 September 1982 been unfit for work for a consecutive period of fifty-two weeks and had remained unfit for work thereafter. This decision too was signed per procurationem by the managing director of the Haarlem district branch of the Joint Administration Office.", "23. In conformity with a new procedure introduced in 1994 by the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht), the applicant lodged an objection with the LISV (care of the Haarlem district branch of the Joint Administration Office) on 9 September 1997. The applicant's notice of objection contained the grounds on which it was based.", "24. The LISV gave a decision dismissing the objection on 30 December 1997. The decision was signed, on behalf of the LISV, by the head of the Objections and Appeals Department of the Haarlem district branch of the Joint Administration Office.", "25. On 29 January 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Administrative Law Division of the Haarlem Regional Court, submitting grounds of appeal at the same time.", "26. The Regional Court held a hearing on 25 March 1999. On 19 April 1999 it gave its decision. Finding that the LISV had failed to undertake any medical examination of the applicant itself, it quashed the decision of 30 December 1997 and ordered the LISV to give a fresh decision.", "27. The LISV, represented by the head of the Objections and Appeals Department of the Haarlem district branch of the Joint Administration Office, appealed to the Central Appeals Tribunal on 4 May 1999.", "28. The Central Appeals Tribunal held a hearing on 24 April 2001. On 29 May 2001 it gave its decision. It gave a summary of the prior proceedings, going back as far as the applicant's first application for an AAW pension on 15 December 1988 and encompassing the decisions of the NAB, the OA Banks and Professions and the LISV as well as the legal remedies applied against these. It went on to quash the decision given by the Regional Court on 19 April 1999 and to declare the applicant's appeal against the LISV's decision of 30 December 1997 unfounded." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "9. The applicant, Mr Eduardo A.A. Mathew, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1973. As far as the Court is aware, he is currently living in Providence, Rhode Island, United States.", "10. The applicant, a kickboxing instructor by trade who also had business interests, was arrested on Aruba on 9 October 2001 on a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm. He was placed in detention on remand in the Aruba Correctional Institution (Korrektie Instituut Aruba – “the KIA”).\nAruba is a “country” (land) of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (see paragraph 125 below). It is one of a group of Caribbean islands known as the Dutch Leewards. Its climate is tropical.", "11. The applicant and the Government disagreed on many of the events that occurred after the applicant had been placed in detention.", "12. It appears that on 16 November 2001 a dispute took place between the applicant and a prison guard, after which the applicant was placed in solitary confinement in the punishment cell (cachot).", "13. The applicant alleged that on 17 November 2001 he had been surreptitiously drugged, after which some guards had come in and ill‑treated him. He stated that a bag had been placed over his head and that when he came to he was lying on the floor in his own blood, covered in urine. He also stated that he had not been let out of the punishment cell for fresh air until 29 November and that he had never received any medical attention despite asking for it.", "14. On 29 November 2001 a violent incident took place in which the then acting governor of the KIA, Mr B.F.C. Vocking, was seriously injured. The applicant was subsequently charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm on him (see below). For his part, the applicant denied having harmed Mr Vocking; according to his version of events, when entering his cell Mr Vocking had bumped into a prison guard, Mr Janga, and had fallen to the floor.", "15. On 4 January 2002 the interim prison governor, Mr F.A. Maduro, who had by that time replaced Mr Vocking, ordered that the applicant be subjected to a special detention regime: he was to spend the remainder of his detention in the committal cell (gijzelaarscel), a solitary confinement cell located next to the punishment cell. In addition, the special regime applicable to the applicant was to comprise the following ten points:\n“1. Under no circumstances may [the applicant] leave his cell without handcuffs and fetters; 3. Outdoor exercise [luchten] shall take place in the space located behind the multi-purpose area for one hour a day, to be decided by the head of department of the internal service or, in his absence, the CMK team leader; 5. Visits by, among others, counsel, probation officers [reclassering], social workers, the medical service and spiritual counsellors, shall take place in his cell where possible; 10. The prisoner shall also be allowed mail, books and, for example, magazine subscriptions [leesmappen] which are being circulated, once they have been censored.”", "16. On 20 February 2002 the applicant's lawyers, Mr Loth and Mr Römer, wrote to the public prosecutor responsible, Ms Hemmes-Boender, complaining about the applicant's treatment leading up to the events of 29 November 2001. It was stated that the acting prison governor, Mr Vocking, had entered the punishment cell with two prison guards, Mr Janga and Mr Van der Biesen, to interrogate the applicant about some threats he had allegedly made to a prison guard. When the applicant refused to cooperate, they had placed a bag over his head and beaten him, apparently with truncheons. As he lay on the floor, the applicant was kicked with booted feet. At that point the applicant had begun to request medical treatment, which, however, had been withheld. In the course of the scuffle, the acting governor, Mr Vocking, had collided with Mr Janga and fallen to the ground, sustaining severe injuries to his face. The applicant had then been locked in the committal cell, where he had later been visited by Mr Loth and Mr Römer. Conditions in the applicant's cell had been revolting: the cell offered insufficient protection from the elements and the floor was covered in filth, including rotting food scraps several days old. Even assuming that the applicant had been abnormally aggressive, the conditions were tantamount to ill-treatment. A request was made on behalf of the applicant for appropriate action to be taken to ensure his detention in humane conditions. The letter was copied to the Governor of Aruba, the Aruban Minister of Justice, the Procurator General of Aruba, the President of the Joint Court of Justice (Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie) of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, the Aruban parliament (Staten van Aruba), Mr Fabrice Kellens (member of the Secretariat of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)) and the KIA prison authorities.", "17. The public prosecutor, Ms Hemmes-Boender, replied to the letter on 27 February 2002, stating that matters were not as serious as had been alleged. The prison was being refurbished and the applicant himself had refused to keep his cell clean. She promised that the glass fibre-reinforced resin sheet covering the hole in the ceiling would be raised in order to improve ventilation.", "18. On 26 June 2002 an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan of the applicant was taken by Dr C.E. Loo, a radiologist at Dr Horacio E. Oduber Hospital in Aruba's capital, Oranjestad. The medical report drawn up noted degeneration of the fifth lumbar disc (discusdegeneratie L5/S1) and no nerve root compression (geen wortelcompressie).", "19. On 8 August 2002 a radiological examination by Dr I.F.M. Lambertina, a radiologist at Dr Horacio E. Oduber Hospital, showed some lumbar lordosis (excessive backward curvature of the spine, causing concavity of the back) and possible limited sclerosis (hardening) of the two lumbosacral joints, but no degenerative abnormalities.", "20. On 10 September 2002 Dr Carlos A. Vallejo Lopez, the neurosurgeon at Dr Horacio E. Oduber Hospital, wrote a note finding the applicant to be suffering from lumbago and prescribing “more mobilisation” and “active physical therapy” for his lower back.", "21. It appears that on 13 February 2003 an altercation took place in the prison courtyard, in the course of which the applicant sustained injuries. A medical report of the same date by one Dr Perez of the Dr Rudy A.M. Engelbrecht Medical Centre – completed on a pre-printed form in Dutch – described the applicant as having suffered “ill-treatment” (mishandeling). The report stated that the applicant had been found lying on the ground with a head wound and complaining of pain.", "22. On 19 February 2003 the applicant's wife, Ms Arianna Iannuccilli, lodged an official complaint with the Aruba police alleging grievous bodily harm inflicted on the applicant by three prison staff.", "23. On an unknown date, probably in April or May 2003, the applicant was referred by the prison doctor to the island's neurosurgeon, Dr Carlos A. Vallejo Lopez.", "24. On 21 May 2003 Dr Vallejo Lopez examined the applicant. On 22 May and again on several occasions over the following few days he prescribed, in particular, outpatient physiotherapy and painkillers. On 22 May 2003 Dr Vallejo Lopez signed an application for physiotherapy for the applicant's lower back problems. A physiotherapist described the treatment as “mobilisation with walker [a walking frame]”.", "25. On 23 May 2003 the applicant was taken to hospital.", "26. On the same day the applicant was examined by a radiologist, Dr Stojanov, using magnetic resonance imaging. The report noted increased rupturing of the annulus fibrosus L5/S1 on the left side.", "27. Another document of the same date, in an unidentifiable hand, contained the query “Got beaten?!”, noted pain in the applicant's lower back area and legs – with a query as to whether it had been simulated – and suggested mobilisation with a walking frame.", "28. On 5 June 2003 Dr Vallejo Lopez wrote to the KIA asking permission for the applicant to complete the physiotherapy treatment programme as an outpatient.", "29. On 6 June 2003 Dr Vallejo Lopez wrote to the social worker A. de Veer, asking whether it was possible to transport the applicant to hospital twice a week for physiotherapy, surgery not being an option at the prison. On 13 June one Major F. Tromp replied, writing on the same note, that it had been agreed that the KIA would make the appropriate arrangements.", "30. On 13 June 2003 the applicant was released from hospital with the following diagnosis, in the form of a handwritten note by Dr Vallejo Lopez:\n“I. Lumbar ... compression L5-S1\nII. Lumbar discal hernia L5-S1\nIII. Lumbar disc. extrusion L5-S1\nPlan: A. Physical therapy. B. Surgery.”", "31. On the same date the interim prison governor, Mr Maduro, wrote to the hospital saying that a prison nurse would ensure that the applicant was taken to hospital for treatment twice a week.", "32. It appears that it had been agreed at a meeting the day before that arrangements would be made for the applicant to be taken to the rehabilitation department of Dr Horacio E. Oduber Hospital twice a week.", "33. On 23 June 2003 Dr Rodriguez Robelt and Dr Perez Dopazo of the Aruba Public Health Department wrote to the interim governor of the KIA asking that the applicant be given a wheelchair in order to prevent, in particular, falls like the one that had taken place the week before.", "34. Also on 23 June 2003 Prison Guard First Class Grovell, on behalf of the interim governor, imposed a punishment regime on the applicant for twenty-eight days: the applicant was not to receive any visits or use the telephone. The applicant was said to have attacked prison staff with his walking frame and incited fellow inmates in the remand unit to violence. His actions, moreover, were made more serious by the fact that they had been premeditated.", "35. On the same day another inmate by the name of Ignacio complained to the Queen, the Minister of Justice of Aruba, the Public Prosecution Service and the CPT about an incident that had taken place the day before. The incident had been caused by the alleged refusal of the prison authorities to show Ignacio papers justifying the prolongation of his detention. When he had asked to see them, instead of showing him the papers, prison guards had ill-treated him. This had been witnessed by the applicant, who had told the prison guards to stop. The applicant had not attacked anybody: he had merely tried to block one of the prison guards with his walking frame to prevent further violence. The complaint was co-signed by ten inmates, including the applicant.", "36. On 30 June 2003 another of the applicant's fellow prisoners, one Van der Biezen, signed a statement describing a fire that had broken out in the remand unit, after which prison guards had allegedly come in and ill-treated the applicant.", "37. On 1 July 2003 Dr Rodriguez Robelt examined the applicant. He noted a slight inflammation of the skin where the handcuffs had been and pain in the lumbar region from L5 to S1, which increased when the applicant moved his lower limbs, and made a diagnosis. He prescribed treatment as indicated by the specialist (Dr Vallejo Lopez), urgent palliative care, rest and continued physiotherapy.", "38. On 3 July 2003 the interim prison governor, Mr Maduro, imposed a disciplinary punishment on the applicant. The punishment involved fourteen days' solitary confinement, commuted in view of the applicant's state of health to twenty-eight days without visits or telephone. The applicant was said to have orchestrated premeditated attacks on prison staff, to have incited fellow prisoners to violence, threatened prison staff, failed to follow orders immediately and to have been an accomplice to arson and the destruction of public property. The punishment was to begin on 21 July 2003, in view of the earlier disciplinary measures imposed on 23 June.", "39. On 4 July 2003 fellow prisoner Van der Biezen signed a statement to the effect that the prison management had fabricated a case against the applicant.", "40. On the same date the neurosurgeon Dr Vallejo Lopez wrote the following statement (original in English):\n“Mr Alexander Matthew [sic], with Lumbalgia and Radicular pain at the level of L5-S1 (Lumbar Discal Hernia S5-S1) is under medical treatment with Physical Therapy, but his condition is not so good, specially the aspect of the pain. Considering the situation of the patient like prisoner (K.I.A. Aruba) it is very difficult to give guarantee that the medical treatment and Physical Therapy treatment are going in the normal direction.\nMr Matthew has indication for surgical procedure, but this indication at the present is not so clear, because of the abnormal situation of the patient. I suggest to have a second opinion with another Neurosurgeon and then it will be possible to define this difficult case.\nConsidering that Aruba has only one Neurosurgeon, we have to explore the needs to get a second opinion with the Neurosurgeon that periodically is visiting the Island or one Neurosurgeon from abroad.\nThe need for a second opinion to evaluate the case of Mr Matthew is Medically necessary.\n[signed] Dr Carlos A. Vallejo Lopez”", "41. On 5 July 2003 a fellow prisoner named Paesch signed a statement to the effect that a fire had broken out in the remand unit, near the applicant's bed. Paesch blamed an unnamed fellow inmate. He stated that guards had come in and beaten the applicant. The applicant had been handcuffed, fettered, beaten and given electric shocks. A statement dated 6 July described ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant in the form of beating, fetters and handcuffs. According to a further statement by the same prisoner, dated 7 July, a guard called Moure had threatened to kill the applicant when he asked for his pills; Paesch did not remember the date on which that had happened.", "42. On 7 July 2003 the lawyer Mr David G. Kock wrote to the interim governor of the KIA noting that the applicant was once again being detained in the committal cell. Pointing out that the Joint Court of Justice had held, in its judgment of 14 April 2003, that the conditions of the applicant's detention there bordered on the unacceptable, he demanded his transfer to another cell and improved conditions of detention.", "43. On 18 October 2003 Ms Iannuccilli wrote to the interim governor of the KIA asking for the applicant to be examined by a doctor of his choice and offering to take responsibility for all costs incurred.", "44. On 20 October 2003 she received a fax, on Aruba Prison Service stationery, which read as follows (original in English):\n“Dear Doctor Iannucelli [sic],\nYour husband can be referred to any specialist of his choice in Aruba, as long as the specialist in question is registered in Aruba according the current law.\nAccording to several medical reports Eduardo needs no surgery, he's supposed to have some medical treatments, but he won't cooperate.\nLet's get that clear, if Eduardo won't cooperate in his healing, he cannot be forced to do so.\nSincerely,", "45. On 23 October 2003 Ms Iannuccilli wrote to the Governor of Aruba, Mr O. Koolman, informing him of the reply she had received and asking him to order that the applicant be removed from the committal cell without further delay and be seen by a specialist medical practitioner from abroad.", "46. On 25 November 2003 Dr Rodriguez Robelt and Dr Perez Dopazo wrote to the KIA prison authorities noting that the applicant had had difficulty attending physiotherapy sessions in recent months. The letter contained the following passages:\n “And without wishing to violate any established rules of the KIA of which we are not aware, we propose and prescribe the following: 2. Cooperation of prison staff in helping the patient to attend physiotherapy, as he is currently being kept in a place where he has to walk down stairs and is therefore in danger of falling, which would aggravate his condition. 3. If for any reason the above prescription cannot be followed, it will be necessary to transfer the patient to another place where he does not have to go down stairs and to offer him a wheelchair, as already suggested in our previous request, so that he can find his own way to the point from where he can be taken for physiotherapy. 4. That he continue to be given assistance in cleaning his cell, as has been done hitherto.\nNote: The patient suffers from a discal hernia (L5-S1) which, even if it does not result in paralysis of his lower limbs, is very painful. That is why the patient declines to walk or to adopt certain positions that cause him pain.”", "47. On 5 January 2004 the applicant again wrote to the interim prison governor, Mr Maduro, complaining that he was still being denied a wheelchair and physiotherapy and being made to walk down two flights of stairs to meet his visitors despite his condition. He stated that his pain was so severe that he had difficulty sitting upright through a fifty-minute visit.", "48. Apparently on 27 January 2004 the applicant was informed orally that he would not be granted early release. It was claimed that he had not been issued with a formal written decision. He submitted a copy of an unsigned document dated 16 January 2004 sent by the registry of the Aruba Court of First Instance to the Aruba Minister of Justice, phrased in the following terms:\n“Please find attached the documents sent to the Central Rehabilitation Board [Centraal College voor de Reclassering] relating to the release of Eduardo Alexander Antonio Mathew. The Board has the honour of informing you as follows.\nIt appears from the appended reports that the above-mentioned Mathew has acted contrary to the conditions for granting provisional release, in particular, by causing grievous bodily harm to a member of staff, fleeing from hospital, failing to follow orders given by KIA staff, issuing threats and insults, disturbing the order, peace and safety of the institution, causing unrest, destroying property, etc.\nThe Central Rehabilitation Board therefore suggests that you consider not granting provisional release to Eduardo Alexander Antonio Mathew, born on Aruba on 9 February 1973.”\n(b) Complaint proceedings", "49. On 19 November 2001 the applicant wrote to the supervisory board (Commissie van Toezicht) of the KIA. He complained that Mr Vocking had ordered that he be placed in solitary confinement on the basis of a misunderstanding and without interviewing him first. He had been forced to see his lawyer in the punishment cell while naked. He also complained that he had been ill-treated on 17 November.", "50. On 5 September 2002 the applicant, through his lawyer, complained to the KIA's supervisory board about the regime imposed on 4 January 2002 and the condition of the committal cell. Promises to improve these had not been kept. Appended was a handwritten statement addressed to the interim governor of the KIA, Mr Maduro, describing the treatment of the applicant as “illegal”, “corrupt” and “tourcher” (torture); it was signed by a large number of other KIA inmates.", "51. On 7 October 2002 the applicant, through his lawyer, wrote to the KIA supervisory board noting that the roof of the committal cell had finally been repaired, but that the other complaints set out in the letter of 5 September 2002 remained valid. The applicant had not been allowed outdoor exercise for four months and was still being denied the physiotherapy prescribed for him.", "52. On 30 October 2002 the applicant himself wrote to Ms E.M.D. Angela, the chairperson of the KIA supervisory board, complaining that despite the promises made by the public prosecutor, Ms Hemmes-Boender, in her letter of 27 February 2002, his situation had not improved. Since 14 June 2002 he had not been allowed access to fresh air, as prison staff refused to carry his wheelchair downstairs. Physiotherapy was being denied him by the KIA prison authorities, who refused to take the trouble to transport him to hospital. In addition, the lack of ventilation was causing him headaches.", "53. On 19 August 2001 the applicant was arrested by order of the public prosecutor on charges of violence against a former employee. He was placed in police custody and subsequently in detention on remand. He was placed in the remand unit of the KIA, where he remained until he was released on 4 October 2001.", "54. On 9 October 2001 the applicant was rearrested, this time for inflicting grievous bodily harm using weapons, and again placed in the remand unit of the KIA.", "55. On 15 October 2001 the applicant was taken to hospital by KIA personnel for the treatment of stomach complaints. The applicant absconded from hospital the following day. Later that day, accompanied by his lawyer, he returned to the KIA and gave himself up; he was given fourteen days' solitary confinement for absconding.", "56. The Government submitted a report by a prison guard stating that on 25 October 2001 the applicant had refused to return to solitary confinement after outdoor exercise – “for the umpteenth time” (voor de zoveelste keer), in the words of the report – and had been accompanied back to his cell by several guards.", "57. Another report by a prison guard, dated 12 November 2001, described the applicant refusing to return to his cell and threatening violent retribution.", "58. On 16 November 2001 the applicant and some fellow inmates refused to return to their cells for locking in. The prisoners broke down a partition to use parts of it as weapons. This led the acting prison governor, Mr Vocking, to place the applicant in solitary confinement for seven days. The applicant was also denied telephone calls and outdoor exercise until further notice.", "59. On 26 November 2001, upon being refused outdoor exercise, the applicant threatened the prison guards.", "60. The incident in which Mr Vocking was badly injured took place on 29 November 2001. The Government stated that the applicant had deliberately broken Mr Vocking's eye socket, cheekbone and skull and caused him severe concussion by punching him and kicking him in the head. The Government pointed to the applicant's conviction by the Aruba Court of First Instance and the Joint Court of Justice and the rejection of the applicant's appeal on points of law by the Supreme Court on 1 June 2004 (see below).", "61. As a result of this violent altercation the applicant was given thirty-five days' solitary confinement. On 4 January 2002, after the end of this term, a special regime was ordered by the interim prison governor, Mr Maduro, which was intended to last for the remainder of the applicant's detention in the KIA. The ten-point order, which was submitted by both parties, is quoted in extenso above (see paragraph 15).", "62. On 5 March 2002 the applicant's special regime was changed: the applicant would no longer be required to wear fetters as well as handcuffs when leaving his cell unless he endangered prison staff by using his feet. On 1 August 2002 an order was given granting him two hours of outdoor exercise every day.", "63. The applicant's conduct did not, however, change for the better. He continued to threaten prison staff and transgress the rules. The Government submitted reports which described the applicant removing his handcuffs during outdoor exercise, hiding a mobile telephone in his cell and damaging the padlock on the door of his cell beyond repair.", "64. On 2 August 2002 the applicant was asked to leave his cell so that the roof could be repaired. When he stated that he could not walk, prison guards offered to carry him out on a stretcher. The applicant, however, refused, saying that he was suffering from headaches and pain in his back and wanted to see a doctor. He had been seen three days earlier, on 30 July 2002, by the prison doctor, Dr Ernesto Rodriguez; Dr Rodriguez had given him an injection and prescribed medicine. He had also been seen on 1 August 2002 by the prison nurse, Ms Bowina H. Vos. Given the applicant's refusal to be moved, work on the roof of the cell was halted.", "65. A report by a prison guard dated 12 March 2003 stated that on 6 January 2003 at 1.30 a.m. the applicant had been seen doing push-ups, apparently untroubled by his physical condition.", "66. Violent behaviour was reported in the first half of 2003. One official report, by Prison Guard First Class Anthony Williams, related the following events, alleged to have taken place on 13 February 2003:\n“On taking over from Prison Guard Semerel, the reporting officer was told that Prisoner Mathew, who was in a wheelchair, unhandcuffed, near the inner guard post, had been brought back and had to be locked up again. Around 3.10 p.m. the reporting officer ordered Mathew to go to his cell with the help of two outdoor workers (fellow inmates). Mathew refused and informed the reporting officer that he needed to speak with the governor or a supervisor, otherwise he would not return to his cell. The reporting officer telephoned Prison Guard First Class J.M.A. Grovell and notified him of the situation. Grovell then informed the reporting officer that he would send reinforcements to get Mathew back into his cell. The reporting officer was joined by prison officers G. Weller and W. Beyde and again ordered Mathew to go to his cell otherwise he would be carried there. Mathew replied that he would not go to his cell and did not want the two designated, bona fide outdoor workers (fellow inmates) to touch the wheelchair. Knowing Mathew, the reporting officer took out his handcuffs in order to put them on Mathew so as to be prepared for the worst. Unfortunately the reporting officer only succeeded in handcuffing Mathew's right hand since Mathew began to put up fierce resistance and even ripped off a piece of the metal armrest on the wheelchair, which he brandished in the air, with the clear intention of using it as a weapon. At one point Mathew bit the reporting officer's right hand very hard, and the reporting officer responded by elbowing Mathew in the back of his head, but Mathew continued his fierce resistance, waving his hands and feet in the direction of the reporting officer and his colleagues G. Weller and W. Beyde. Beyde finally managed to pull the piece of metal out of Mathew's right hand. With the help of Weller and Beyde, Mathew was held firmly and carried in the direction of the committal cell. Mathew continued to offer fierce resistance by waving his hands and feet, and tried to throw the reporting officer and his two colleagues down the stairs. The reporting officer received a hard blow from the back of Mathew's head, resulting in a cut to the reporting officer's lower lip. While going down the stairs leading to the observation section, Mathew seized the opportunity to fasten the still open handcuff to the rail to prevent his being carried any further. By constantly moving his whole body, Mathew sustained injuries to the back of his head on the metal rail. W. Beyde pulled out his handcuffs in order to secure both of Mathew's hands, and the prisoner was then carried to his cell and locked up. As a result of Mathew's fierce resistance, the reporting officer sustained a broken finger among other injuries. Thus drawn up by the reporting officer under oath of office for forwarding to whomsoever it is deemed necessary.”", "67. Apparently on 1 July 2003 an incident took place, recorded in the following terms in an official report by Prison Guard First Class S.E. Vos:\n“Prisoner Mathew was told three times by Prison Guard First Class L. Pemberton that he had to be transferred to the committal cell. Mathew got out of bed, remained standing (without a walking frame), persistently refused to go to the committal cell, became insolent and began to attack the officers by kicking and punching them. The undersigned tried to grab the prisoner's hands, but Mathew punched the undersigned in the face. The reporting officer, with the help of Prison Guard Pemberton, resorted to force in order to handcuff Mathew so that he could be moved; this was not easy since Mathew offered fierce resistance. With great difficulty, the reporting officer and Prison Guard Pemberton managed to handcuff Mathew. He was then put on a stretcher so that he could be taken to the committal cell. On the way, Mathew became aggressive and insolent again and deliberately fell off the stretcher several times, with the clear intention of hindering his transfer. Once on the ground, Mathew began to threaten the reporting officer and officers present with death or murder. Mathew was put back on the stretcher. While being carried, Mathew shouted at the reporting officer and those present in English: 'All of you get fucked when I come out, I have six more months to do, don't worry!' Upon reaching the committal cell, the handcuffs were removed and the prisoner was locked in the cell. As a result of the blows the reporting officer received from Mathew, the reporting officer had to go to the St. Nicolaas outpatient department to receive medical attention. Knowing Mathew, and in view of his past deeds, the reporting officer feels threatened and fears that Mathew will put his words into action. The reporting officer has therefore notified the criminal investigation authorities.”\nThe Government suggested that this might in fact have been the incident referred to in the statement by one of the applicant's fellow prisoners dated 30 June 2003 (see paragraph 36 above).", "68. By way of disciplinary punishment, the applicant was for each of these incidents denied private visits and use of the telephone for twenty-eight days, in lieu of the fourteen days' solitary confinement he would otherwise have received. These disciplinary measures were enforced consecutively between 23 June and 18 August 2003.", "69. The Government denied all knowledge of any incident on 5 July 2003 (see paragraph 41 above).", "70. In the course of 2003 a further attempt was made to detain the applicant in a normal (multi-person) cell, but the problems were such that he had to be returned to the committal cell.", "71. The Government stated that since the applicant had refused to keep his cell clean, a job normally left to the occupants themselves, the prison authorities had paid another inmate to do it for him.", "72. On 27 April 2004 the Government informed the Court that the Governor of Aruba had decided to grant the applicant early release on the occasion of the Queen's official birthday on 30 April 2004. The applicant was released on that date.\n(b) Medical treatment", "73. The Government stated that the applicant had reported stomach complaints from the beginning of his detention, but had refused to take prescribed medicines or give a blood sample.", "74. In January 2002 it became apparent that the applicant was injuring his ankles deliberately by rubbing the fetters against them. A nurse treated the wounds with bethadine (a disinfectant) and sterile gauze. The applicant was seen twice by the prison doctor in connection with these complaints, on 24 January and 15 February 2002. On 5 March 2002 it was decided that the fetters would no longer be applied.", "75. On 6 March 2002 the applicant saw the nurse, complaining of headaches and eye problems; on 15 March he was duly taken to the outpatient department. On 26 March he was given a check-up by the KIA medical staff.", "76. On 31 March 2002 the applicant complained that he was suffering from a stomach ache and passing blood. However, he refused to give a urine sample.", "77. On 4 April 2002 the prison doctor again saw the applicant.", "78. On 16 April 2002 the applicant put his back out while doing strenuous physical exercise. He was seen by the doctor and given painkillers. He was seen again on 19 April.", "79. On 26 April 2002 the applicant refused treatment by a psychiatrist from Curaçao.", "80. On 30 July 2002 the applicant was apparently examined by a doctor from Cuba, who found nothing wrong with him.", "81. On 14 August 2002 the applicant was provided with a wheelchair.", "82. On 10 September 2002 the applicant was taken to hospital so that he could consult Dr Vallejo Lopez and Dr Molina. They examined him using X-ray and magnetic imaging scans. They found that the applicant was suffering from lumbago and prescribed physiotherapy.", "83. A report by KIA nursing staff dated 21 January 2003 stated, among other things, that physiotherapy had to be financed by the prisoners themselves and that the applicant had refused to meet the expense involved out of his own pocket; for that reason he was not being given such treatment. It also stated that the applicant had not seen a psychiatrist because of preconditions which he had set before he would agree to do so; finally, despite his allegedly poor physical condition, the applicant did not present the complications that might be expected in the case of a bedridden patient (including constipation, bedsores, poor hygiene – the applicant was able to take showers by himself – loss of appetite and depression).", "84. On 13 February 2003 the applicant had some stitches to the back of his head, which were removed on 20 February.", "85. In February and March 2003 the applicant again complained of back pains, claiming that the painkillers were not effective.\nOn 5 April 2003 the applicant was again seen by Dr Vallejo Lopez, who again prescribed physiotherapy.", "86. On 21 May 2003 the applicant was admitted to hospital for intensive physiotherapy. He remained in hospital until 13 June 2003, the intention being that treatment should continue in the KIA.", "87. On 19 June 2003 the applicant refused to attend physiotherapy.", "88. On 21 June 2003 the applicant stated that he had fallen on his back. He was taken to the outpatient department for treatment.", "89. The applicant missed his appointments with the physiotherapist on 24 and 26 June and 1, 3 and 7 July 2003. He attended physiotherapy on 10 and 15 July.", "90. Physiotherapy was resumed on 6 March 2004, after the applicant had again reported back pains, but discontinued shortly afterwards because the physiotherapist could not identify the problem clearly.", "91. Following an intervention by the supervisory board (see below), physiotherapy was again resumed on 6 April 2004.\n(c) Complaints proceedings", "92. The Government stated that the applicant had first written to the supervisory board of the KIA on 20 January 2002. The board had considered the applicant's complaints at its meetings of 30 January and 27 February 2002. It had sent him a reply on 26 March 2002, phrased as follows:\n“...\nNearly all your complaints relate to the special regime in the KIA which has applied to you since the incident with Mr Vocking on 29 November 2001. You are – presumably – aware of what the regime involves.\nIn view of all the circumstances of the case, the Board takes the view that the present regime is still necessary at this time for your safety and the safety of others. It has, however, been agreed with the interim governor of the KIA that it will need to be seen in future to what extent (depending on your behaviour and your attitude, in particular vis-à-vis KIA staff) that regime can be relaxed. Everything depends on your behaviour and your attitude.\n...”", "93. On 5 September 2002 the applicant again wrote to the board, through his lawyer, complaining about the regime and the state of his cell.", "94. By letter of 7 October 2002, again through his lawyer, the applicant acknowledged that the roof had been repaired but complained that he had not been allowed outdoor exercise for four months and that he had still not been given the prescribed physiotherapy.", "95. On 30 October 2002 the applicant himself wrote to the supervisory board restating his complaints. On the same day the board inspected the applicant's cell and interviewed him in person about his complaints. This led the board to suggest to the interim governor of the KIA that the applicant be moved back to an ordinary cell subject to certain conditions. The interim governor promised to organise this.", "96. Later, however, the interim governor withdrew his promise following the theft of X-rays from the hospital instigated by the applicant and the latter's refusal to accept the letter setting out the conditions subject to which he would be returned to detention under the ordinary regime.", "97. The supervisory board discussed this problem with the Aruban Minister of Justice, who instructed the interim governor to place the applicant in an ordinary cell. The instruction was obeyed.", "98. However, after the applicant had been placed in a ground-floor cell with other prisoners, an incident took place which led to his being returned to solitary confinement in the committal cell.", "99. After receiving medical information from the applicant's wife, the supervisory board requested the KIA governing body to ensure that the applicant received physiotherapy. They received the reply that no physiotherapist was prepared to treat the applicant: the problem was that the applicant was not willing to meet the expense, and it had not been demonstrated that either he or his family was indigent.", "100. The supervisory board engaged the services of a physiotherapist, Mr Carti, who stipulated that the Aruban Ministry of Justice should guarantee payment for his services. This condition was met and treatment began on 6 March 2004. The Government submitted his handwritten report, which reads as follows (original in English):\n“Mar 6, 04\n9 A.M. \nAlex Matthew [sic]\nc/o – severe lumbago (L) > (R)\nDiff – gait, stairs prolonged w.b.\nOnset: + 1.5 yr ago, gradually worse\nMedi – Tramal [an analgesic]\nPrev PT – hospital last year & no effects.\nObs: gait & walker. Partial w.b.\nAble to t. steps & use of railing. + 20 steps.\nWalked + 90 metres to nurses' station.\nClimbed onto treatment table & min ass.\nc/o PI during massage – trembling. (Aloe heat lotion)\nAfter massage – turned prone to side ... RC and sat up before standing.\n– used a comode [sic] on wheels to return to cell.\nPt complained of too much pain to carry out traditional physical testing however able to stand/turn unassisted.\nS+S do not make sense, or correlate with his physical activities.\nP – D/C physio. due to my inability to determine exactly what the problem is. PT carries out complex physical activities such as twisting lumbar spine and stairs & no or little complaints while trembles and complains of severe pain while massaging his back. He also states that he does not feel the heat from the Aloe heat lotion which was used to massage. My final impression is that physiotherapy at this time (by myself) is unable to help this patient.\n[signed]\nRudolph P. Carti", "101. On 14 June 2002 the Aruba Court of First Instance (Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg van Aruba) delivered its judgment in the criminal case against the applicant. It convicted the applicant on two charges of inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.", "102. On 14 April 2003 the Joint Court of Justice gave judgment on the applicant's appeal against his conviction and sentence. It quashed the first-instance judgment of 14 June 2002. In a fresh decision, it held that the applicant's conditions of detention on remand did not constitute grounds for declaring the prosecution inadmissible. It went on to find the applicant guilty of, firstly, having on 19 August 2001, together with another person, inflicted grievous bodily harm on one M. (kicking and beating resulting in fracture of the nose and the zygoma) and, secondly, having on 29 November 2001, acting alone, inflicted grievous bodily harm on Mr Vocking (punching and kicking resulting in the fracture of an eye socket, the sinus, the cheekbones and the cranium, as well as severe concussion). The Joint Court of Justice's reasoning included the following:\n“In determining the sentence the Joint Court of Justice will further consider the circumstances in which the suspect has been, and is still being, detained.\nThe following is apparent in relation to the suspect's conditions of detention. On 16 November 2001 the suspect was placed in a punishment cell. He had already been placed in a punishment cell at an earlier stage for various reasons, including an escape. His stay in the punishment cell was twice extended for seven days, until 30 November 2001, first for failing to follow an order given by a staff member and subsequently for disturbing the order, peace and security of the institution. The second extension related to the action of a number of detainees who refused to return to their cells after outdoor exercise. On 29 November 2001, the date [of the attack on Mr Vocking], the prisoner's solitary confinement was extended for another seven days for threatening and spitting on a prison guard. Afterwards, his solitary confinement was extended until 4 January 2002 for [the attack on Mr Vocking], with the result that the suspect has spent a total of forty-nine days in the punishment cell. By letter of 4 January 2002 the KIA authorities let it be known that the suspect was to spend the remainder of his detention in the committal cell, subject to restrictive measures including not being allowed to leave the cell without handcuffs and fetters. This measure was amended on 5 March 2002 by being limited to the use of handcuffs.\nAs regards the committal cell, it appears that the roof is made of corrugated plastic sheeting and was defective during at least part of the detention period. During [the suspect's] stay in the committal cell he has had no television, activities, work or sport. Moreover, outdoor exercise no longer takes place on a regular basis since the suspect has indicated that he is unable to walk.\nThe Joint Court of Justice considers that the applicant has established that during his period of detention on remand – which has lasted until today – he has been kept under an exceptionally severe regime. The [suspect's] continuous placement in a punishment cell, which began shortly after [his] detention, suggests that the interaction between the suspect and the staff of the KIA has resulted in a downward spiral, in the sense that an incident was followed by punishment, which in turn was followed by a reaction from the suspect, and so on. All this culminated in the attack on Mr Vocking. It is understandable in itself that after such an act the KIA should not have wished, after having imposed an extended stay in the punishment cell, to place the suspect under the normal detention regime again. However, this does not alter the fact that prolonged detention in the punishment cell and the committal cell in restrictive conditions approaches the limits of what is acceptable, assuming that these have not already been exceeded. The Joint Court of Justice also considers it plausible that the conditions of detention have negatively influenced the suspect's health.\nThe above leads the Joint Court of Justice to impose a considerably lighter sentence than would be justified by the crimes.\nThe suspect has also argued that he has been ill-treated in detention. However, an investigation of [that allegation] falls outside the scope of the present proceedings.\nAs a result of the conditions which the suspect has set for his cooperation in drawing up psychiatric reports and a probation report [reclasseringsrapport], no such reports are available. The Joint Court of Justice can therefore consider the suspect's person and personal circumstances only to the extent that these are known from the case file and the hearing.”", "103. The Joint Court of Justice indicated that it would normally have been minded, in view of the crimes committed, to sentence the applicant to five years' imprisonment, but that the sentence would be reduced to three years and six months in view of the conditions of his detention.", "104. The applicant appealed on points of law (cassatie) to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) against this judgment. The appeal was dismissed with summary reasoning on 1 June 2004.", "105. On 19 February 2003 the applicant brought summary civil proceedings in the Aruba Court of First Instance to secure his release from solitary confinement and restrictive conditions of detention.", "106. The Aruba Court of First Instance gave judgment on 12 March 2003 finding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the applicant's action in civil proceedings: the remedy open to the applicant was the “criminal‑law summary suit” (strafrechtelijk kort geding) (Article 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which – since the applicant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was pending before the Joint Court of Justice – should be heard by that court also.", "107. Accordingly, on 21 March 2003, the applicant lodged a request with the Joint Court of Justice under Article 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be restored to ordinary prisoner status and to have the restrictions lifted.", "108. The Joint Court of Justice held a hearing on 16 April 2003. The applicant challenged all the judges on the ground that they had participated in decisions at first instance affecting him.", "109. On 25 April 2003 the Joint Court of Justice rejected the challenge. The hearing on the merits of the applicant's request was resumed on 13 May 2003.", "110. On 27 May 2003 the Joint Court of Justice gave an interlocutory decision on the applicant's request for the lifting of the restrictive conditions of detention. It adjourned the case, summoned the interim governor of the KIA as a party and set him a deadline (17 June 2003) for a written statement of defence.", "111. On 15 July 2003 the Joint Court of Justice gave a decision in the proceedings adjourned on 27 May. It ordered the interim governor to have regard to the following guidelines in relation to the restrictions to which the applicant was subject:\n“(a) The need for detention in the committal cell should be assessed at regular intervals, at least once a month. In the absence of incidents, transfer to the normal regime should be considered, it being reasonable to expect [the applicant] to abide by the conditions set down in writing by the governor.\n(b) Any use of irons outside the cell should also be assessed at regular intervals, at least once a week. In the absence of incidents, this restriction should be lifted.\n(c) [The applicant] should be given the opportunity to go to the outdoor exercise and visiting areas. The Court does not consider it appropriate to oblige the KIA to carry [the applicant] to these areas or to enable him to receive visitors in his cell. [The applicant] has not denied that he can walk with a walking frame. Nor is it apparent from the medical statements that [the applicant] is not able to go to the outdoor exercise and visiting areas himself or that independent walking is itself harmful.\n(d) It does not appear that [the applicant] has been subjected to special restrictions as regards censoring of his mail.\n(e) Clearly [the applicant] should be given the medical care considered necessary by the physicians treating him. However, it is not apparent that this has been withheld from him.\n(f) The Joint Court of Justice would add the following. The said downward spiral has resulted in the applicant's being detained in difficult conditions. Even though he is not blameless in this regard, he should nonetheless be treated as humanely as possible. If, for whatever reason, outdoor exercise, visits or other activities do not take place, then in order that the applicant's detention should remain 'within the limits of what is acceptable' the KIA must consider and decide on each occasion whether measures to compensate the loss may be offered, such as the use of a television or personal computer.\n(g) In so far as this is not already being done, a written record shall be kept of any future incidents which cause the restrictions to be maintained, as well as of the (reasoned) decisions referred to under (f), in order to determine in any future proceedings whether this decision has been complied with.”", "112. On 17 July 2003 Dr Rodriguez Robelt of the Aruba Public Heath Department wrote to Dr Vallejo Lopez inviting him as a specialist to give an expert opinion and advise on appropriate treatment.\n(b) The second set of proceedings", "113. On 8 August 2003 the applicant requested the Joint Court of Justice to release him from detention on remand.", "114. On 2 September 2003 the Joint Court of Justice declared the request inadmissible, there being another procedure for that purpose. The Joint Court of Justice's reasoning included the following:\n“3.2 Mathew has asked, in the alternative, that the public prosecution service and/or the prison governor be ordered to transfer him to the formal detention regime applicable to the other prisoners. The public prosecution service has no competence in this matter. The actual execution of orders for detention on remand is the responsibility of the Country of Aruba, represented by the governor of the KIA. The request directed against the public prosecution service will be dismissed for this reason. 3.3. It is clear from the decision of today's date given by the Joint Court of Justice on Mathew's other request, for the lifting of his detention on remand, that this request has not been granted. Accordingly, Mathew has a legitimate interest based on his alternative claim against the governor of the KIA (transfer to the 'normal detention regime'). 3.4 The Country of Aruba has the responsibility to ensure that the execution of judicial detention orders takes place in accordance with the regulations in force. Mathew's complaints about the way [his detention order is being executed] may be summarised as follows:\n(a) he is currently being kept in the committal cell for an indeterminate period;\n(b) he is not being allowed outdoor exercise;\n(c) he cannot receive visits;\n(d) he has not been offered compensation as referred to in paragraph 2.6 (f) of the decision of this Court of 15 July 2003;\n(e) he was not interviewed prior to the imposition of disciplinary measures;\n(f) the operation he needs is being withheld from him.\nAs to (a): 3.5 In its decision of 15 July 2003 the Joint Court of Justice ruled that detention in the committal cell should be assessed every month. This was based on the consideration that Mathew had been returned to the committal cell in response to an incident. It has become clear in the meantime – since the prison governor has admitted as much at the hearing – that [the applicant's] placement in the committal cell should not (any longer) be seen as a response to an incident, but as – in the prison governor's perception – the only possible regime for Mathew. It has been argued in support of this proposition that Mathew is quite unsuited to detention on remand in a communal setting. This prompts the question whether this is in fact the case, and, if so, what consequences should ensue for the complaints raised in these proceedings by Mathew. 3.6. Ever since Mathew was first detained in the Aruba Correctional Institution there have been problems, in particular Mathew's unpredictable behaviour. Reports by prison staff of recalcitrant behaviour, followed by the (sudden) use of violence by Mathew, are legion. The number of reported incidents is such that it may be concluded that it is no longer feasible to let Mathew undergo his detention on remand in a communal setting. It is now sufficiently plausible that there is no alternative within the Aruba Correctional Institution, given the aforementioned conclusion, than to keep Mathew detained in the committal cell. It cannot be ruled out that at some point Mathew's attitude and behaviour may show such a change that it may be possible to return him to a communal regime, but the Joint Court of Justice sees no indications that such is the case now or will be in the near future. It is therefore pointless to set the prison governor a time-limit for reconsidering the matter.\nAs to (b) and (c): 3.7. As regards outdoor exercise and receiving visits, it does not appear that the present circumstances are any different from those noted at the time of the Joint Court of Justice's decision of 15 July 2003. That means that it can once again be considered established that Mathew is given the opportunity to take outdoor exercise and to receive visits in the visitors' area. It is up to Mathew whether or not he makes use of that opportunity. In the absence of medical information to the contrary the Court assumes that Mathew is still able to reach the outdoor exercise and visitors' areas unaided [op eigen kracht].\n...\nAs to (f): 3.10. As it did at the time of its decision of 15 July 2003, the Joint Court of Justice again finds nothing to indicate that Mathew is being denied the medical assistance he requires. According to the neurosurgeon Carlos A. Vallejo Lopez, in his letter of 4 July 2003, 'surgery is indicated'. The conditions of Mathew's detention, according to that letter, are one reason why the 'prospects' are 'uncertain' at present. Although it is not quite clear to the Joint Court of Justice what is meant by this, one thing is clear: the letter does not state that an operation is necessary now, without further delay. On that basis alone there is no need to order any measures. In addition, the public prosecution service and the prison governor have promised that Mathew will receive the necessary medical care. There is no indication that the public prosecution service and the prison governor will fail to honour that promise. For that reason also there is no need to order any measure.”", "115. The KIA governor was ordered to make provision for the applicant to have his own television in his cell; the applicant's other requests – including a request to be transferred to the Netherlands (the Realm in Europe) – were refused.", "116. The KIA is reported by the Government to be capable of holding 250 prisoners. It comprises a dormitory for prisoners serving short terms of detention in lieu of unpaid fines and separate sections for female prisoners and juveniles. Adult male remand prisoners and convicted prisoners are typically kept in three-person cells. There are four single-prisoner cells intended for convicted prisoners serving very long sentences. There are four observation cells intended for mentally unstable prisoners; these tend to be occupied most of the time.", "117. The committal cell in which the applicant was detained is described as being 7.4 metres long and 3 metres wide and equipped with a bed, a table, a chair, a lavatory and a shower. It is located on the second floor, directly under the roof.", "118. A new high‑security wing is being added to the KIA; it is expected to be suitable for detaining aggressive prisoners.", "119. The applicant was seen by Mr Michele Lancellotti, a chiropractor in Providence, Rhode Island, on 19 May 2004. He complained to Mr Lancellotti of severe lower back pain with numbness in his left leg and occasionally in his right leg. The pain prevented him from walking up and down stairs. He had difficulty getting up from a seated position and walking for any length of time. He further complained of neck pain, headaches, blurred vision and pain and cracking in both knees. He used a walking frame. Mr Lancellotti's report described the applicant as, at that time, “totally disabled” and contained a plan for treatment.", "120. Mr Lancellotti saw the applicant on subsequent occasions. The applicant submitted records of visits dated 21, 24, 26 and 28 May; 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17, 22, 24 and 29 June ; 1, 6, 13, 19, 21, 23, 26 and 30 July; and 2, 4, 11, 13, 16, 19, 23, 27 and 30 August 2004. A record of a re-evaluation undertaken by Mr Lancellotti on 3 September 2004, based on magnetic resonance images and the applicant's subjective complaints of pain, expressed the opinion that the applicant “has a permanent physical impairment of the body as a whole caused by ill-treatment and neglect; progress is slow”.", "121. The applicant submitted copies of colour photographs, the first showing a man of very muscular build, stated to be the applicant, lying prostrate on a floor, clad only in underpants, with another person's foot on his head, and the second the same man lying prostrate on a floor, with large spatters of a red substance around his head.\nThe red spatters are not visible in the first photograph. No laceration or other injury is discernible in either photograph, although the first shows dark patches on the man's left shoulder and left thigh that might be bruising.", "122. The Government did not deny that the man shown in the photographs was the applicant but they stated that the photographs were bogus. They submitted that the boot and the trousers worn by the person holding his foot on the applicant's head (who was clearly also the person taking the photograph) in the first photograph were identifiable as part of the uniform worn by prison staff: it was obvious, therefore, that the applicant had bribed a member of the KIA staff to take the pictures and smuggle them out of the prison.", "123. The photographs were published, together with others also stated to be an accurate reflection of the treatment meted out to the applicant and of conditions in the KIA generally, in the Aruban press and on an Internet site. The other published photographs included one of a man's ankle that appeared to be bleeding from a small laceration and one of a hole in a roof which was only partially covered by grating and by a sheet of corrugated translucent material.", "124. The publication of the photographs prompted the interim governor of the KIA, Mr Maduro, to lodge a criminal complaint of libel with the Aruban police on 23 July 2002. The police investigation was eventually discontinued, with the permission of the public prosecutor, on 6 December 2002. Ms Iannuccilli was suspected of involvement in the matter but no prosecution was brought." ]	[ 1 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic of the Russian Federation.", "5. On 11 January and 14 December 1999 the Yakutsk Town Court granted the applicant’s claims against his former employer, a public company “Sakhaavialinii” (ОАО Авиакомпания «Сахаавиалинии», “the company”), and ordered payment of wage arrears and court fees.", "6. It appears that the judgments could not be enforced as the company went bankrupt. In July 2000 the court bailiffs forwarded the writs of execution to the company’s receiver.", "7. On an unspecified date the applicant sued the receiver. He claimed that the amounts outstanding should be adjusted for inflation.", "8. On 17 January 2003 the Neryungri Town Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to appear at the hearings of 27 December 2002 and 17 January 2003, despite having been duly notified thereof. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.", "9. In March 2004 the applicant for the second time sued the company’s receiver, asking to increase the amounts to take account of the inflation.", "10. On 5 May 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed his claim because the company had been declared bankrupt in 2003 and had ceased to exist. On 30 June 2004 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal.", "11. The applicant brought a civil action against the Russian Government. He sought to enforce a State-issued promissory note for the purchase of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof.", "12. On 6 June 2000 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant’s action and awarded him 63,000 Russian roubles (“RUR”, EUR 2,360). The judgment was not appealed against and it became final and enforceable.", "13. The applicant was issued with a writ of execution which he submitted to the court bailiffs’ service. On 26 April 2001 a bailiff of the 2nd Interdistrict Court Bailiffs’ Service of the Central Administrative District of Moscow refused to accept the writ because the law on budget for the year 2001 and the implementing Government regulation, introduced in December 2000, established that writs against the Treasury were to be submitted directly to the Federal Treasury.", "14. On 13 August 2001 the applicant sued the Neryungri Department of the Federal Treasury seeking enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2000 and adjustment of the judgment debt for inflation. His claim was dismissed in the final instance on 5 December 2001 by the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic as having no grounds in the domestic law.", "15. On 24 October 2001 the applicant also complained about the allegedly unlawful decision of the Moscow bailiff’s service to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. On 24 December 2002 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint in the final instance. It found that the bailiff had acted lawfully. The applicant received a copy of the judgment on 19 July 2003.", "16. The judgment of 6 June 2000 remains unenforced to date." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Poznań, Poland.", "5. On 17 June 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody for a period of three months on suspicion that he had committed three counts of armed robbery. It considered that that measure was indispensable in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, having regard to the serious nature of the offences in question and the severity of the anticipated penalty. Lastly, it considered that, given the way in which the offences in question had been committed, the applicant might attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony.", "6. During the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged several times.", "7. On 19 August 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged his detention until 16 December 1999, relying on the grounds originally given for his detention. It further referred to the need to take various investigative measures and obtain expert evidence. It also considered that the complexity of the case justified the prolongation of the applicant's detention with a view to securing the proper conduct of the investigation. The applicant appealed against that decision, relying on his poor health.", "8. On 13 October 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal, having regard to the medical report of 28 September 1999 which concluded that the applicant could remain in detention.", "9. On 8 December 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged his detention until 16 June 2000, finding that it was highly probable that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. In that respect, it referred to evidence given by a certain A.Ł., a member of the same criminal group, who acted as a witness against the other suspects. The Court of Appeal further relied on the need to obtain and secure evidence, in particular from experts in ballistics, biology and fingerprints. It stressed that it was also necessary to hold a reconstruction of the crime and to confront the suspects with each other. It also considered that the scale and the nature of the offences in question justified the applicant's continued detention. The applicant appealed against that decision.", "10. On 8 February 2000 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed his appeal. It had regard to the serious nature of the offences in question and the need to obtain further evidence. It further emphasised the complexity of the case and considered that the applicant's continued detention was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.", "11. On 24 May 2000 the Supreme Court extended the applicant's detention until 15 December 2000, considering that the strong suspicion against him of having committed the serious offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the risk of his tampering with evidence justified holding him in custody. It found that the present case was “particularly complex” within the meaning of Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to, inter alia, the nature of the offences and the number of suspects involved.", "12. On 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the detention of the applicant and his 8 co-suspects pending investigation until 31 March 2001. On 7 March 2001 it ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 31 May 2001. It repeated the grounds stated in its previous decisions. It added that the prolongation of the applicant's detention was justified by the need to obtain DNA evidence.", "13. On 15 May 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court on 12 charges, including several counts of armed robbery. The bill of indictment listed 120 charges brought against 19 accused, who were all detained on remand. The case-file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses. The principal witness was a certain A.Ł., who was indicted together with all the defendants but gave evidence against them.", "14. On 17 May 2001 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 16 June 2001, reiterating the grounds that had been stated in the previous decisions. It considered that there was a risk that he might abscond or interfere with witnesses, having regard to the serious nature of the offences in question and the connections between the suspects.", "15. Since on 16 June 2001 the applicant's detention reached the statutory time-limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further prolongation of the applicant's detention was ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal relied on the particular complexity of the case as the ground for extending the applicant's detention beyond the statutory time-limit. The relevant decisions were given on 23 May 2001 (extending the applicant's detention until 31 October 2001), on 24 October 2001 (prolonging that period until 31 March 2002), on 13 March 2002 (ordering his continued detention until 30 September 2002), on 11 September 2002 (prolonging the detention until 31 December 2002), on 18 December 2002 (ordering his continued detention until 30 June 2003), on 25 June 2003 (extending the detention until 31 December 2003), on 17 December 2003 (prolonging it until 30 June 2004), on 23 June 2004 (ordering his continued detention until 31 December 2004), on 15 December 2004 (extending that period until 31 March 2005), on 30 March 2005 (ordering his continued detention until 30 June 2005) and on 22 June 2005 (prolonging his detention until 30 September 2005). As at the latter date, 8 of the 19 accused were still detained on remand and the trial court had heard most of the prosecution witnesses.", "16. In all those decisions the Court of Appeal stated that the grounds originally given for the applicant's detention were still valid. It especially relied on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings against any attempt by the applicant to obstruct the process of obtaining evidence. It stressed the exceptionally complex nature of the case and the fact that several hundred witnesses were to be heard.", "17. In the meantime, the trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as at April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution was still continuing.", "18. In its decision of 13 March 2002, the Court of Appeal found that holding the applicant and his seven co-defendants in custody was the only measure which would prevent them from obstructing the trial, having regard to the nature of the offences in question, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fact that such attempts had been made in the course of the investigation. It also instructed the trial court to increase the number of hearings held per month.", "19. In its decision of 23 June 2004, the Court of Appeal observed that up to April 2003 the main reason for the delays during the trial was the obstructiveness of the defendants and the abuse of the rights of the defence.", "20. In its decision of 18 January 2005 dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of 15 December 2004 prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal held that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings. It added that the risk of absconding or tampering with witnesses which existed in the present case did not have to be supported by any concrete facts, but resulted from the above presumption.", "21. On 21 March 2005 the trial court made a severance order with a view to expediting the proceedings, and thereafter four defendants (J.N., G.P., Z.S. and Z.C.), who in the meantime had been released from detention, were to be tried separately from other defendants.", "22. During the trial the applicant filed numerous but unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention. He maintained that the length of his detention was excessive and unreasonable and that the charges against him lacked a sufficiently strong basis since they were founded on unreliable evidence from A.Ł.", "23. It appears that the applicant is still in detention pending trial." ]	[ 2 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Rumia, Poland.", "5. On 31 August 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed a series of armed robberies in an organised group.", "6. On 1 September 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand pending the investigation. It considered that in the light of the evidence obtained in the investigation, there was a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The District Court also noted that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant could induce witnesses to give false testimonies or obstruct the proper course of the proceedings by other unlawful means, since he had not admitted the offences and the investigation was pending. Lastly, the District Court had regard to the severity of anticipated penalty.", "7. On 18 November 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant's detention until 29 February 2001.", "8. On 16 February 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) ordered that the applicant and a certain T.M., a second detained suspect, be held in custody pending investigation until 30 June 2000. It held that the continued detention was justified by the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. That suspicion was based primarily on evidence given by a certain A.Ł., another member of the same criminal group, who acted as a witness against the other suspects. The Court of Appeal also considered that the continued detention was necessary in view of the serious nature and scale of the offences in question. Furthermore, it was also justified by the need to obtain evidence from many sources.", "9. On 10 April 2000 the Supreme Court upheld that decision. It added that prolongation of detention was necessary given the organised character of the criminal activities of the applicant and T.M.", "10. On 20 June 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 August 2000. In addition to the grounds previously given, it observed that that the applicant's detention was justified by the complexity of the investigation and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed.", "11. On 10 July 2000 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor laid additional charges against the applicant.", "12. On 17 August 2000 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), on an application from the Prosecutor General (Prokurator Generalny), extended the applicant's detention until 15 December 2000. It found that the strong suspicion against the applicant of having committed the serious offences in question, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to obtain further evidence warranted holding him in custody.", "13. Meanwhile, seven other persons were charged and detained in connection with the same set of offences.", "14. On 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, on an application from the Gdańsk Prosecutor of Appeal (Prokurator Apelacyjny), prolonged the applicant's detention pending the investigation until 31 March 2001. It reiterated the original grounds given for his detention. Taking into account the nature of the offences, the Court of Appeal added that the fact that the charges against all the nine suspects were closely interrelated justified a fear that, once released, they might obstruct the proceedings. It also referred to the particular complexity of the case. Furthermore, it noted that the prolongation of the investigation was due to the fact that new suspects had been identified in the course of the investigation.", "15. Meanwhile, a tenth suspect had been detained in connection with the same investigation.", "16. On 15 January 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) altered the charges against the applicant. Ultimately, he laid 20 charges against him. They comprised 1 count of attempted robbery, 3 counts of robbery, 5 counts of armed robbery, 4 counts of burglary, 6 counts of possessing a firearm without a licence and 1 count of theft.", "17. On 7 March 2001 the Court of Appeal, on an application by the Gdańsk Prosecutor of Appeal, prolonged the applicant's and his 9 co-suspects' detention until 31 May 2001. It held that the original grounds given for the applicant's detention were still valid and that the need to obtain DNA evidence justified the continuation of that measure.", "18. On 15 May 2001 the Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant on the 20 charges laid against him on 15 January 2001 before the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The bill of indictment listed 120 charges brought against 19 accused, who were all detained on remand. The case-file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses.", "19. On 17 May 2001 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be detained pending trial until 31 August 2001, finding that it was necessary in order to prevent him – and his other 12 detained co-defendants – from evading justice or tampering with evidence.", "20. The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as at April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution was still continuing. Initially, the trial court held three hearings per month. As from June 2002 it decided to hold five hearings per month.", "21. Since on 31 August 2001 the applicant's detention reached the statutory time-limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further prolongation of the applicant's detention was ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. During the trial the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention several times. The relevant decisions were given on 22 August 2001 (prolonging his detention until 31 March 2002), on 28 March 2002 (extending his detention up to 30 September 2002), on 11 September 2002 (ordering his continued detention until 31 December 2002), on 18 December 2002 (prolonging that period until 30 June 2003), on 25 June 2003 (extending his detention up to 31 December 2003), on 17 December 2003 (ordering his continued detention until 30 June 2004), on 23 June 2004 (prolonging his detention until 31 December 2004), on 15 December 2004 (prolonging his detention until 31 March 2005) and on 30 March 2005 (extending that period until 30 June 2005). The court held that the grounds previously given for his continued detention were still valid.", "22. On 19 September 2001 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 22 August 2001, prolonging his detention. It held, inter alia, that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alone constituted a sufficient ground for the applicant's detention as he had been charged with an offence for the commission of which he was liable to a statutory maximum sentence of at least 8 years' imprisonment.", "23. In its decision of 23 June 2004, the Court of Appeal observed that up to April 2003 the main reason for the delays during the trial was the obstructiveness of the defendants and the abuse of the rights of the defence.", "24. In its decision of 18 January 2005 dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of 15 December 2004 prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal held that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings. It added that the risk or absconding of tampering with witnesses which existed in the present case did not have to be supported by any concrete facts, but resulted from the above presumption.", "25. On 21 March 2005 the trial court made a severance order with a view to expediting the proceedings, and thereafter four defendants (J.N., G.P., Z.S. and Z.C.), who in the meantime had been released from detention, were to be tried separately from other defendants.", "26. In the course of the proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention.", "27. It appears that the applicant is still in detention pending trial.", "28. On 23 September 2003 the applicant began to serve a three years' imprisonment sentence imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings. That sentence is due to come to an end on 3 May 2006." ]	[ 2 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Reda, Poland.", "5. On 27 January 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed armed robbery. On 29 January 1999 the Tczew District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fear that he might tamper with evidence. The court also observed that other measures designed to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings would be insufficient, given the fact that at the time of the commission of the offence the applicant had already been released under police supervision in another case. That, in the court's opinion, convincingly showed that only detention could prevent him from committing another offence.", "6. On 20 April 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention. It reiterated the grounds originally given for his detention. Referring to the fact that more lenient preventive measures had not prevented the applicant from having committed another offence, the court considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would abscond. Furthermore, it considered that since the applicant had not admitted the charge and that there had been other persons involved in the offence who had remained at large, there was a reasonable risk of collusion.", "7. In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was several times prolonged by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). The court reiterated the grounds originally given for his detention and stressed that keeping him in custody was necessary to secure the process of obtaining evidence. The relevant decisions were given on 21 July 1999 (prolonging the applicant's detention until 31 December 1999) and 8 December 1999 (prolonging his detention until 27 January 2000). The applicant's appeals against those decisions – in which he contested the reasonableness of the charge against him – were rejected by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).", "8. On 21 January 2000 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant's detention – which had meanwhile exceeded the 1 year's time-limit set for detention pending the investigation under Article 263 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – until 30 April 2000. It considered that the case was “particularly complex” within the meaning of Article 263 § 4 of the Code.", "9. On 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court prolonged his detention until 30 June 2000. On 24 May 2000 the Supreme Court ordered that that term should further be prolonged until 15 December 2000. The court reiterated the previous grounds given for the applicant's detention and added that the case was very complex, given that 6 further suspects had in the meantime been charged and detained in the case and that several other potential suspects were still being searched for.", "10. In the meantime, new charges were laid against the applicant.", "11. Further prolongation of the applicant's detention pending the investigation were ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 13 December 2000 (up to 31 March 2001) and on 7 March 2001 (up to 31 May 2001). In its decision of 13 December 2000, the Court of Appeal relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of anticipated penalty. It also considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant and the other 8 detained co-suspects, if released, might obstruct the proceedings or attempt to evade justice, having regard to the nature and the scale of the offences with which they had been charged (numerous counts of armed robberies) and the number of suspects involved. In its decision of 7 March 2001, the Court of Appeal added that the prolongation of detention was justified by the need to obtain DNA evidence.", "12. On 15 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) indicted the applicant on 48 charges comprising, among other things, numerous counts of armed robbery before the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The bill of indictment listed 120 charges brought against 19 accused, who were all remanded in custody. The case-file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses. It appears that the principal witness was a certain A.Ł., who had been indicted together with all the defendants but gave evidence against them.", "13. The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as at April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution was still continuing.", "14. During the trial, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention several times. The relevant decisions were given on 23 May 2001 (extending his detention up to 31 October 2001), on 24 October 2001 (ordering his continued detention until 31 March 2002), on 13 March 2002 (prolonging that period until 30 September 2002), 11 September 2002 (extending his detention until 31 December 2002), on 18 December 2002 (prolonging his detention until 30 June 2003), on 25 June 2003 (prolonging his detention until 31 December 2003), on 17 December 2003 (extending that term until 30 June 2004), on 23 June 2004 (extending that term until 31 December 2004), on 15 December 2004 (ordering his continued detention until 31 March 2005) and on 30 March 2005 (extending that period until 30 June 2005). As at the latter date, 8 of the 19 accused were still detained on remand and the trial court had heard most of the prosecution witnesses.", "15. In all those decisions the Court of Appeal considered that the original grounds given for the applicant's detention were still valid. It stressed that keeping him in custody was necessary in order to prevent him – and his co-defendants – from evading justice or tampering with evidence.", "16. In its decision of 13 March 2002, the Court of Appeal found that holding the applicant and his 7 co-defendants in custody was the only measure which would prevent them from obstructing the trial, having regard to the nature of the offences in question, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fact that such attempts had been made in the course of the investigation. It also instructed the trial court to increase the number of hearings held per month.", "17. In its decision of 11 September 2002, the Court of Appeal considered that the applicant's detention was justified under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since that provision established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings.", "18. In its decision of 23 June 2004, the Court of Appeal observed that up to April 2003 the main reason for the delays in the trial was the obstructiveness of the defendants and the abuse of the rights of the defence.", "19. On 21 March 2005 the trial court made a severance order with a view to expediting the proceedings, and thereafter four defendants (J.N., G.P., Z.S. and Z.C.), who in the meantime had been released from detention, were to be tried separately from other defendants.", "20. The applicant repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, asked for release and appealed against the decisions prolonging his detention. He maintained that the length of his detention was unreasonable and contested the charges against him, stressing that they were based on unreliable evidence from A.Ł.", "21. It appears that the applicant is still in detention pending trial.", "22. From 9 March 2000 to 15 April 2002 and from 21 June 2002 to 31 July 2002 (i.e. for 2 years, 2 months and 17 days) the applicant served a sentence of imprisonment imposed in other criminal proceedings. He was, however, simultaneously remanded in custody in the present case." ]	[ 2 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Genichesk, the Kherson region, Ukraine.", "5. In 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Genicheskyi District Court against Mr S. (a private person) seeking recovery of a debt. On 20 August 1999 the court found for the applicant and ordered Mr S. to pay him UAH 6,975 (around 1,152 euros – “EUR”).", "6. On 30 August 1999 the Genicheskyi District Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 20 August 1999.", "7. According to the applicant, the judgment of 20 August 1999 has been enforced in part and he was paid UAH 3,000 (around EUR 496).", "8. In December 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Genicheskyi District Court about the Bailiffs' Service's inactivity in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 20 August 1999. On 16 January 2001 the court found for the applicant, declared the Bailiffs' Service's inactivity unlawful and ordered the immediate seizure of the property of Mr. S.", "9. In March 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Genicheskyi District Court against the Bailiffs' Service seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the failure of the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgments of 20 August 1999 and 16 January 2001.", "10. On 4 May 2001 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to pay the applicant UAH 5,500 (EUR 909) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court held that due to the failure of the Bailiffs' Service to immediately seize the property of Mr S., as it had been ordered by the judgment of 16 January 2001, the latter had sold a substantial part of his property. The court further held that the Bailiffs' Service had failed to sell the part of the debtor's property, which had been seized.", "11. On 25 May 2001 the Genicheskyi District Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 May 2001. On 20 November 2001 the Kherson Regional Department of Justice appointed the Novotroitskyi District Bailiffs' Service to be responsible for the enforcement of the aforementioned judgment.", "12. On 29 July 2002 the Novotroitskyi Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the Genicheskyi Bailiffs' Service was being funded from the State Budget and it did not have its own assets suitable for seizure.", "13. On 14 June 2002 the Novotroitskyi Bailiffs' Service applied to the Genicheskyi District Court seeking the interpretation of the way in which the judgment of 4 May 2001 should be enforced. On 7 August 2002 the court refused this application, stating that the judgment needed no further interpretation or clarification.", "14. On 29 December 2002 the Novotroitskyi Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the execution writ to the applicant on the grounds that the Genicheskyi Bailiffs' Service did not have its own assets and was financed by the Ministry of Justice.", "15. The applicant did not challenge the decision of the Novotroitskyi District Bailiffs' Service of 29 December 2002 before the domestic courts.", "16. The judgment of 4 May 2001 remains unenforced." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "7. The applicants were born in 1954 and 1960, respectively, and live in the city of Kirovograd, Ukraine.", "8. Until 1998 the applicants served as career officers in military unit A-425. In 1998, the applicants retired.", "9. Upon retirement, the applicants were entitled to different types of compensation and payments. As these entitlements went unpaid, they instituted proceedings in the Cherkassy Garrison Military Court against military unit A-0425 for their recovery.", "10. On 13 August 1998 the court found for Mr Svintitskiy and awarded him UAH 2,376.37[1].", "11. On 24 September 1998 the court found for Mr Goncharov and awarded him UAH 670[2].", "12. These court decisions were not appealed and came into force. The execution writs were sent to the Kirovograd Bailiffs' Service for enforcement.", "13. Between March 1999 and March 2000 the applicants lodged numerous complaints with the local departments of justice and defence and with the local prosecutor's office about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.", "14. By letter of 6 September 1999, the head of the economic department of the Ministry of Defence informed the applicants that the judgments in their favour remained unenforced due to the lack of sufficient funding from the State Budget.", "15. By letter of 12 January 2000, the Kirovograd District Prosecutors' Office informed the Mr Svintitskiy that the judgment in his favour could not be enforced due to the lack of funds of the debtor, and the impossibility of attaching the debtor's property since it belonged to the State.", "16. On 1 August 2001 the judgment in favour of Mr Goncharov was enforced in full.", "17. On 17 September 2001 the judgment in favour of Mr Svintitskiy was enforced in full." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk, Ukraine.", "5. On 27 October 2000 the Arbitration Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the State Company “Prydniprovskyi Khimichnyi Zavod” (the “PKZ”) – a State-owned enterprise.", "6. In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bagliyskyi District Court against the PKZ seeking recovery of salary arrears. On 9 August 2001 the court awarded the applicant UAH 2,201.58 (around 324 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears and other payments.", "7. On 5 July 2004 the applicant was informed by a letter from the Bailiffs' Service that the judgment in her favour was not enforced due to a large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against it. The Bailiffs also informed her that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.", "8. The judgment in the applicant's favour remains to a large extent unenforced (UAH 2,192.58 (EUR 325)), as only UAH 9.00 (around EUR 1.32) were paid to her." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "8. The applicant, Mr Constantin Becciev, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1955 and lives in Chişinău. He is the head of the Chişinău Public Water Company.", "9. On 21 February 2003 he was arrested by the Department of Criminal Investigation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on charges of embezzlement.", "10. On 23 February 2003 a criminal investigator in charge of the case applied to the Centru District Court for an order to remand the applicant in custody for thirty days. The reasons invoked by the investigator were the following:\n“Becciev committed a serious offence, he might abscond from the investigation authorities and from the court, he might influence the participants in the investigation and the discovery of the truth and the sanction provided by law for the offence is imprisonment for more than one year”.", "11. On 24 February 2003, following a hearing where the applicant and his lawyers were present, the Centru District Court issued an order for his remand in custody for twenty-five days. The court’s reasoning was the following:\n“the suspect has reached the age at which he may be criminally prosecuted, he is suspected of having committed a serious offence, he might abscond from the investigation authorities and from the court and he might influence the witnesses and the discovery of the truth”.", "12. The applicant’s lawyers lodged an appeal against the order, arguing inter alia, that the decision to remand the applicant was groundless. They stated that the proceedings had been pending since 2001 and that during that time the applicant had never obstructed in any way the investigation. He had travelled abroad on many occasions and returned every time and he had always behaved irreproachably as regards the investigation. He was a well-known and respectable man and he had a family and a house and many reputable people were prepared to act as surety if he were to be released in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chişinău Municipal Council and the leader of a parliamentary opposition party also declared their intention to act as surety for him in order to secure his release. The lawyers also stated that the applicant was ready to give up his passport. They finally alleged that the applicant’s detention was politically motivated and had been implemented to coincide with the approaching local elections.", "13. They requested that the applicant be present in person at the hearing, but the request was dismissed, together with the applicant’s appeal following a hearing on 4 March 2003 by the Chişinău Regional Court. In dismissing the appeal, the court did not rely on any other arguments than those relied upon by the first instance court.", "14. Meanwhile the applicant was detained in the remand centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Chişinău.\n(a) The applicant’s submissions", "15. According to the applicant, the conditions of detention were inhuman and degrading. The cell was damp, the window was closed by metal plates and the electric light was always on. The cells were not provided with ventilation. As a result of the damp, the inmates’ clothes were wet and rotted on their bodies. Instead of a toilet, there was a bucket which was not separated from the rest of the cell. Instead of beds, there were wooden shelves with no mattresses, pillows, blankets or bed linen. The inmates were denied the opportunity of a daily walk. There was no means of maintaining hygiene in the cell. There was no shower and the applicant was constantly running the risk of getting infected with tuberculosis, skin infections and other infectious diseases.", "16. The applicant submits that the food was inedible. The daily amount spent by the State for a detainee’s food was 3.5 Moldovan Lei (MDL) (0.23 euros (EUR)). Because of the State’s incapacity to provide adequate food, the prisoners were exceptionally allowed to receive food from their families. However, in the applicant’s case the legal provisions were applied very strictly and he was not allowed to receive parcels from his family more than once a month.\n(b) The Government’s submissions", "17. The applicant was detained in cell no. 6 of the remand centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The surface of the cell was 12 square metres and usually four to five persons were detained in the cell.", "18. There was a window in the cell and daylight was available. The ventilation of the cells was effected by the common ventilation system. The cells were provided with water closets. In 2002 the premises of the remand centre were refurbished and the toilets were separated from the rest of the cell by a wall in order to ensure the privacy of the detainees. The cells were permanently provided with tap water, and accordingly the inmates enjoyed an adequate level of hygiene. The cells were frequently disinfected and the detainees had access to a shower once a week.", "19. During his detention the applicant had the possibility to play chess, draughts and dominos and to read books and magazines. He also had the possibility to pray and to use religious literature.", "20. In their initial observations on the admissibility and merits of September 2004, the Government did not deny the applicant’s allegation that there was no exercise yard in the prison and that accordingly the detainees did not enjoy outdoor exercise. However, in their supplementary observations of June 2005 the Government argued that the applicant enjoyed walks for one hour per day, at any time of the day convenient to him.", "21. The detainees were provided with free food in accordance with the norms provided by the Government and the quality of food was satisfactory. The prison was provided on a daily basis with bread, vegetable oil, vegetables, tea and sugar. Because of insufficient funding, the detainees were not served meat and fish; however they were given an increased quantity of cereals and lipids. Moreover, the detainees, including the applicant, had the right to receive food from their families.", "22. The applicant had access to medical assistance.", "23. On 18 March 2003 the Centru District Court granted the investigator’s request to prolong the applicant’s detention on remand for another thirty days. The court’s reasoning was exactly the same as that relied upon when the detention on remand was first ordered. The applicant appealed against that decision but the appeal was dismissed by the Chişinău Regional Court on 21 March 2003 at a hearing where the applicant was not allowed to be present, although his lawyers were present. No new arguments were given by the Chişinău Regional Court.", "24. On 1 April 2003 the applicant was transferred from the remand centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the remand centre of the Ministry of Justice. 6. Hearings regarding the second extension of remand before the Centru District Court and before the Chişinău Regional Court and the interview of C.B.", "25. On 17 April 2003 the Centru District Court again prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand for thirty days. No new reasons were given. The applicant appealed against this decision.", "26. On 18 April 2003 the independent weekly newspaper “Timpul” published an interview with the police colonel “C.B.” who had worked as a Superior Inspector of the Cross-Border Financial Crimes Directorate within the Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and who had been in charge of the applicant’s case for a long time and had arrested the applicant on 21 February 2003. He stated inter alia that:\n“I declare with full responsibility that the Becciev file has been fabricated, on the orders of the heads of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, for political reasons. The real target of this fabrication is the Mayor Serafim Urecheanu and his team...\nMr Becciev has provided the investigation organs with all the requested information, he appeared personally before the investigators every time he was asked to, and he never gave any reason to believe that he intended to abscond. As a matter of fact, he travelled abroad on many occasions after the investigation started and returned every time. No other suspects, even those who are clearly involved, have ever been arrested...\nThe file does not contain and has never contained any evidence that would prove Becciev’s guilt... Many, if not all the witness statements from the file have been falsified or obtained through pressure and blackmail. Even the graphological examination did not prove that it was Becciev’s signature on the documents, on the basis of which the criminal investigation commenced.... The heads of the Ministry of Internal Affairs have put great pressure on me to obtain favourable conclusions from the graphological experts...\nI can say that the Vice-Ministers U. and B. have put pressure on the President of the Centru District Court. Judge D.V. told me personally that he has been called by the Vice-Minister B. – his former University friend. In my turn, I told him that the file was being supervised by the President of the country, and that a decision other than one of detention could cost any judge his or her job...\nIn May 2002 I was invited to see the Vice-Minister A.U., who asked me if I could find some evidence to compromise the Mayor.... In September he called on me again, this time to tell me that I had been included in the investigating group for the Becciev case. He also told me that my target should be the Municipality of Chişinău and the arrest of Becciev and of the Vice-Mayor Anatol Ţurcan... And that I would be promoted if I succeeded....\nI have been asked explicitly to obtain a confession by any means, because ‘there was no time to waste, since the elections were approaching’. Then I understood the gravity of the situation....\nThe decision that I could no longer work with them came to me when they started to pressurise me and to blame me when I could not obtain the necessary confession....\nNobody can or will demonstrate that Becciev was a part of that deal... The investigators know very well who was involved.... It was V.P., one of the owners of Bank “M.”, former member of the Chişinău Municipal Council on behalf of the Communist Party and a sponsor of this party in the last elections...\nThey thought that I came too close to the truth and got rid of me.”", "27. On 25 April 2003 the Chişinău Regional Court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant’s appeal, relying on exactly the same reasons as before. The applicant’s request to be present was denied; however his lawyers were present. The court also denied the applicant’s request to see all investigation documents and to have “C.B.” examined as a witness. It did not give any reasons for this refusal.", "28. On 12 June 2003 the investigators concluded their work on the case and the file was sent to the competent court.", "29. On 27 July 2003 the first hearing in the criminal proceedings took place before the Râşcani District Court.", "30. The applicant was released from detention on 12 August 2003. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending.", "31. The relevant parts of the CPT’s report concerning the visit to Moldova between 11 and 21 October 1998 read as follows:\n“55. In Chişinău, the remand centre had 23 cells; with an official capacity of 79 places, it was accommodating 40 remand prisoners and 20 administrative detainees at the time of the visit. As in Bălţi, the delegation met in that establishment minors who had been sharing cells with adults during prolonged periods.\nThe size of the cells varied approximately from 7 m² to 15 m². At the time of the visit, the small cells held up to two detainees, and the larger cells up to four or five. Such a rate of occupancy may be considered as approaching tolerable norms. The cells were equipped with a wooden platform approximately two metres long, generally covering the whole width of the cell, and an Asian toilet. Like the other establishments visited, the detainees were given neither mattresses nor blankets. In addition, ventilation in the cells was mediocre, access to natural light virtually non-existent and artificial lighting, above the door, was permanently on; this disturbed the detainees at night.\nThe delegation noted that the cell block had a shower area; however, the detainees claimed they did not know that it existed. There were no facilities for outdoor exercise. 56. Depriving persons of their liberty brings with it the responsibility to detain them under conditions which are consistent with the inherent dignity of the human person. The facts found in the course of the CPT’s visit show that the Moldovan authorities have failed to fulfil that responsibility with regard to persons detained in the district police stations and remand centres visited. Moreover, information available to the CPT suggests that the situation is not any different in other police establishments in Moldova. In many ways, the conditions prevailing in the district police stations and the remand centre visited amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and, in addition, constituted a significant risk to the health of persons detained.”", "32. The relevant parts of the CPT’s report concerning the visit to Moldova between 10 and 22 June 2001 read as follows:\n“56. Regarding the remand centres visited throughout Moldova, the delegation made approximately similar findings, with minor exceptions, on the disastrous and unwholesome material conditions. In order to avoid a detailed description, please see for further information paragraphs 53-55 of the report on the visit of 1998.\nAt the remand centre of Chisinau these conditions were aggravated by severe overcrowding. At the time of the visit, 248 of detainees were kept in a facility with a maximum capacity of 80 detainees, and thus 9 persons had to live in a 7m² cell, while 11 to 14 persons had to stay in cells of 10 to 15m². 57. In the visited remand centre, the delegation collected numerous complaints on the quantity of food. It basically included: a cup of tea without sugar and a slice of bread in the morning, cereal porridge in the afternoon and a cup of warm water in the evening. In some places the food was distributed only once a day and included a soup and a slice of bread.”" ]	[ 1, 2 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Rumia, Poland. The application was lodged on his behalf by his mother, Mrs Teresa Jarzyńska, who submitted a duly signed written authorisation from the applicant.", "5. On 1 June 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several counts of armed robbery. It considered that there was a risk that the applicant would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proceedings by other unlawful means. It also relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty.", "6. In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on the following dates: 19 August 1999, 24 November 1999, 24 May 2000, 13 December 2000 and 7 March 2001.", "7. In its decision of 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) considered that the strong suspicion against him of having committed the serious offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the risk of his tampering with evidence justified holding him in custody.", "8. On 10 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor terminated the investigation. On 15 May 2001 the applicant was indicted on 45 charges, including, inter alia, several counts of armed robbery before the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The bill of indictment listed 120 charges brought against 19 accused, who were all detained on remand. The case-file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses. The principal witness was a certain A.Ł., who was indicted together with all the defendants but gave evidence against them.", "9. The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as of April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution was still continuing.", "10. During the trial, the applicant's detention was prolonged several times by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. The relevant decisions were given on 23 May 2001 (extending the applicant's detention until 31 October 2001), on 24 October 2001 (ordering his continued detention until 31 March 2002), on 13 March 2002 (prolonging his detention until 30 September 2002), on 11 September 2002 (extending that period until 31 December 2002), on 18 December 2002 (ordering his continued detention until 30 June 2003), on 25 June 2003 (prolonging that period until 31 December 2003), on 17 December 2003 (extending his detention until 30 June 2004), on 23 June 2004 (ordering his continued detention until 31 December 2004), on 15 December 2004 (prolonging his detention until 31 March 2005) and on 30 March 2005 (extending that period until 30 June 2005). As at the latter date, 8 of the 19 accused were still detained on remand and the trial court had heard most of the prosecution witnesses.", "11. In its decision of 11 September 2002, the Court of Appeal considered that the applicant's detention was justified under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since that provision established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings.", "12. In its decision of 18 December 2002, the Court of Appeal added that the case was “particularly complex” within the meaning of Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.", "13. In its decision of 23 June 2004, the Court of Appeal observed that up to April 2003 the main reason for the delays during the trial was the obstructiveness of the defendants and the abuse of the rights of the defence.", "14. On 21 March 2005 the trial court made a severance order with a view to expediting the proceedings, and thereafter four defendants (J.N., G.P., Z.S. and Z.C.), who in the meantime had been released from detention, were to be tried separately from other defendants.", "15. During the trial the applicant filed numerous but unsuccessful applications for release on health grounds and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention. He maintained that the length of his detention was excessive and unreasonable and that the charges against him lacked a sufficiently strong basis. He also relied on his family's situation.", "16. It appears that the applicant is still in detention pending trial." ]	[ 2 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Konstantynivka, the Donetsk region, Ukraine.", "5. On 22 December 1997 the Kostyantynivskyi Town Court ordered the Avtosklo State Company to pay the applicant UAH 2,462 (406 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears.", "6. On 15 January 1998 the Kostyantynivskyi Town Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.", "7. On 22 June 1998 the Donetsk Regional Arbitration Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.", "8. On 18 February 2002 the debtor was declared bankrupt and the liquidation proceedings were initiated against it.", "9. On 6 February 2003 and 23 February 2004 the applicant was informed by two letters from the Bailiffs' Service that the judgment in his favour was not enforced due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the latter's lack of funds. The applicant was also informed that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.", "10. The judgment of 22 December 1997 remains unenforced.", "11. In March 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kostyantynivskyi Town Court against the Avtosklo State Company seeking compensation for the delay in payment of the judgment debt of 22 December 1997.", "12. On 29 March 1999 the court found against the applicant. On 17 May 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the first instance court." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the city of Lysychansk, the Lugansk region, Ukraine.", "5. On 20 April 2001 the Lysychansk City Court ordered the Melnikova State Mine to pay the applicant UAH 3,727.39 (around EUR 488) in salary arrears.", "6. On 3 May 2001 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.", "7. On 4 March 2002 the Bailiff's Service informed the applicant that the Mine's property has been under a tax lien since 1998 and it lacked funds to pay the judgment debt.", "8. On 30 May 2003 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Mine.", "9. According to the Government, on 28 November 2003 the sum awarded by the judgment at issue was transferred to the applicant's bank account.", "10. According to the applicant, he received that amount on 15 December 2003.", "11. On 1 December 2003 the Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of the Lysychansk City Court of 20 April 2001 had been enforced in full." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Lisichansk, the Lugansk region.", "5. In 1982 the applicant had a serious accident at work and from that time onwards was entitled to occupational disability benefit – including compensation for a purchase of a car designed for disabled persons – from the Chernomorka coal mine (a State owned entity, hereafter “the Coal Mine”).", "6. On 11 June 2001 the Lisichansk City Court awarded the applicant UAH 14,490 (approximately EUR 2,360) against the Coal Mine for its failure to pay compensation for a car.", "7. The judgment became effective and was sent for execution to the Lysychansk City Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs' Service”), which on 14 July 2001 instituted enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case.", "8. On 12 November 2001 the Lisichansk City Court informed the applicant that the attachment and sale proceedings concerning the Coal Mine's assets were suspended due to the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises.", "9. On 29 November 2001 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered the Coal Mine's liquidation, designating the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company as its successor. The coal mine's liquidation commission was established and on 18 February 2002 it was entrusted with the enforcement of the applicant's writ of execution.", "10. On 5 June 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered that the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company split up and its funds be divided between the Luganskuglrestrukrutizatsyya and the Donetskvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Companies.", "11. On 15 April 2004 the writ of execution was returned unenforced to the Bailiffs' Service, which reopened the enforcement proceedings. On account of the liquidation of the coal mine and the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company the Bailiffs' Service on 6 July 2004 suspended the proceedings pending the replacement of the debtor in the applicant's case.", "12. From the parties' submissions it appears that the judgment in the applicant's favour remains unenforced." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "10. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ankara.", "11. The applicant is the owner of “Yurt Books and Publishing”, a small independent firm that has published numerous books in Turkey. The applicant was subjected to several criminal prosecutions for having published certain books between 1991 and 1994 which were held by various State Security Court to constitute propaganda against the indivisible unity of the State.", "12. As a result, the applicant was convicted, in most cases, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3712) and sentenced to periods of imprisonment ranging from six months to two years, as well as fines. After the changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Act on 27 October 1995, the proceedings against the applicant were re-opened and the applicant's sentences commuted to fines, where not otherwise completed. Following the entry into force on 4 August 1997 of Law No. 4304 on the deferment of the judgments and of the execution of sentences in respect of offences committed by editors before 12 July 1997, the ongoing criminal proceedings against the applicant were suspended. Most of the books were confiscated.", "13. In all, the applicant served a total of one year, five months and twenty days in prison and paid the equivalent of 5,121 euros (EUR) in fines.", "14. A chronology of the various proceedings is annexed to the present judgment.", "15. This book was a compilation of interviews given by the author, İsmail Beşikçi, to various foreign and national newspapers, some of which were never published. The Istanbul State Security Court highlighted certain extracts to support the applicant's conviction:\n“Kürt sorununun odak noktasının Kürdistan'ın bölünmesi ve paylaşılması olduğunu düşünüyorum, bugün Iran'ın bir Kürdistanı var, Irak'ın bir Kürdistanı var, Türkiye'nin bir Kürdistanı var... Kürt ulusuna karşı böl yönet politikası uygulanmıştır...\n...Türkiye'de Kürtlere karşı yoğun bir devlet terörü var, Yani terörü devlet yapıyor. Örneğin devlet şöyle işler yapıyor Kürdistanda: Çoçukları bir duvarın dibine diziyor. Duvarın karşı tarafta da çocukların babalarını veya dedelerini diziyor. Karşılıklı iki ev. Bir tarafta babalar, dedeler işkence görüyorlar, diğer tarafta da onlarin çocukları ...\n...Kürdistan ulusal mücadelesinin çok onurlu, sonsuz derecede meşru bir mücadele olduğu kuşkusuzdur. Kürdistan'da kapsamlı, yoğun ve onurlu bir gerilla mücadelesi sürerken, yurt dışında olmanın bu mücadeleye aktif olarak katılamamanın yurt dışındaki kürtler için çok büyük bir güçlük oluşturduğunu düşünmekteyim ... Kürdistan ulusal kurtuluş mücadelesine katılmanın, bu onurlu mücadeleyi desteklemenin binbir türlü yolu vardır... Kürdistan ulusal mücadelesi içinde yeralan bütün işçilere, bütün köylülere, aydınlara, gerilaya katılan genç erkeklere ve kadınlara, gerilayı destekleyen herkese, gerilla mücadelesinin önderliğini yürüten bütün kadrolara, başkan Apo'ya binlerce selam olsun ...”\n<Translation>\n“I think the focal point of the Kurdish problem is the division and partition of Kurdistan. Today, Iran has a Kurdistan, Iraq has a Kurdistan, [and] Turkey has a Kurdistan. ... The policy of divide and rule was applied to the Kurdish Nation. ...\n...There is intense State terror against the Kurds in Turkey ... For example, the State is doing the following in Kurdistan: It is assembling children next to the wall. On the other side of the wall, it is assembling their fathers or grandfathers. Two houses facing each other. On the one side, fathers and grandfathers are tortured, on the other their children. ...\n...There is no doubt that the Kurdistan national struggle is a very honourable, infinitely legitimate movement. I think that while the comprehensive, intense and honourable guerrilla struggle is continuing in Kurdistan, it is difficult for the Kurds in foreign countries not to be able to participate actively in this struggle. ... There are thousands of ways to participate in the Kurdistan liberation struggle, [and] to support this honourable struggle. ...Thousands of salutations to workers, villagers and intellectuals who participate in the Kurdistan national struggle, young men and women who joined the guerrillas, all those who support the guerrillas, to all the cadres who lead the guerrilla struggle [and] to leader Apo. ...” 2. “The case of İsmail Beşikçi from the point of view of scientific methodology, academic autonomy and the principles of a democratic society II - The Defence” (“Bilimsel yöntem, Üniversite özerkliği ve demokratik toplum ilkeleri açısından Ismail Beşikçi davası II‑Savunma”)", "16. This book concerned legal proceedings brought against the author, İsmail Beşikçi, in a Martial Law Court in 1980, together with the author's comments. The following statements were highlighted in the prosecution:\n“...Kürt toplumunda ekonomik, toplumsal ve siyasal bakımlardan bazı değişmeler olmaktadır. Bu değişmeler sürecinden aşiret yapıları çözülmektedir, ulusal bilinç gelişmektedir. Önümüzdeki dönemde, Kürt toplumunda, ulusal bilinç hızlı bir şekilde gelişecektir. Bu süreci, devrimci ve demokratik bir bilinçle donanmış küçük burjuva Kürtlerde, Kürt aydınlarında görmek mümkün olacaktır. ...”\n<Translation>\n“...there are certain economic, social and political changes in the Kurdish community. By this process of change, the feudal structures are loosening, [and] the national conscience is developing. In the coming period, the national conscience is going to develop speedily in the Kurdish community. It will be possible to see, amongst the small bourgeoisie, Kurds equipped with a revolutionary and democratic conscience, as well as amongst Kurdish intellectuals. ...”", "17. This book was originally published in 1990 by another publisher. At that time, an action was brought against İsmail Beşikçi and the publisher in the Istanbul State Security Court under Article 142 of the Criminal Code. Following the repeal of Article 142 on 4 June 1991 they were acquitted.", "18. In October 1993 the applicant re-published the book. The following statements were highlighted in the prosecution:\n“...Lozan. Türkler için yeni bir devletin kuruluşudur, bir kurtuluştur, Kürtler için ise bir esarettir, Kürdistan'ın bölünmesinin, parçalanmasının ve paylaşılmasının, Kürt Ulusuna böl-yönet politikası uygulamasının garantiye alındığı, ulusalararası bir antlaşmadır. ...İngiliz emperyalizmi kemalistlerle, Arap emperyalizmi ile, İran Şahı ile işbirliği yaparak Kürdistan'ı bölmüş, parçalamış ve paylaşmıştır. ...\n...Atatürk herşeyden önce bir Kürt cellatıdır. ...”\n<Translation>\n“...The Lausanne Treaty is, for the Turks, the establishment of a new State; liberation but for the Kurds, it is captivity. It is an international treaty by which Kurdistan was divided, partitioned, and by which the implementation of the policy of 'divide and rule' against the Kurdish nation was guaranteed. ...British imperialism collaborated with the Kemalists, the Arab imperialists and the Shah of Iran to divide, destroy and share Kurdistan amongst them. ...\nAtatürk is, above all, an executioner of the Kurds.”", "19. This book consisted of articles written by İsmail Beşikçi before 1971. The following statements were highlighted in the prosecution:\n“...Kürdistan, bilinçli bir devlet politikası ile geri bırakılmıştır, bu politika ile Kürdistan'da sanayileşme gerçekleştirilmemiş, olanakları yaratılmamıştır, böylece nüfusun batı illerine göçü sağlanmıştır. Göç süreci asimilasyon doğrultusunda kullanılmıştır. ...\n...Bugün Kürt ulusal varlığını, Kürt dilini, Kürdistan'ı inkar eden hiçbir hukuksal düzenlemenin meşru olmadığını vurgulamaya çalışıyorum. ...\n...O halde bugün Türkiye halkları emperyalizm ve onun işbirlikçisi olan işbirlikçi burjuvazi ve feodal ağalardan meydan gelen bir üçlü tarafından baskı altında tutulmakta ve sömürülmektedir. ...”\n<Translation>\n“...It was deliberate State policy to leave Kurdistan in a backward condition. This policy of not industrialising Kurdistan, or not creating opportunities for industrialisation, was used [to encourage] the immigration of the population to the western cities. The immigration process was used for assimilation. ...\n...I am trying to emphasise that no legal order which denies the existence of the Kurdish nation, the Kurdish language and Kurdistan can be legitimate. ...\n...Today, therefore, the troika of imperialism and its collaborators, the bourgeoisie and the feudal lords, oppress and exploit the people of Turkey. ...”", "20. This book consisted of official documentation relating to criminal proceedings before various courts, in particular before the State Security Courts, brought against İsmail Beşikçi and the applicant. 6. “The case of İsmail Beşikçi from the point of view of scientific methodology, academic autonomy and the principles of a democratic society V - The approval decision of the Court of Cassation and the rectification of the judgment” (“Bilimsel yöntem, Üniversite özerkliği ve demokratik toplum ilkeleri açısından Ismail Beşikçi davası V-Yargıtay'ın onama kararı ve Tashihi karar”)", "21. This book was the last in the series concerning the proceedings against İsmail Beşikçi in a Martial Law Court in 1980. The following statements were highlighted in the prosecution:\n“Askeri Yargıtay bu iddiaların varit olmadığını söylerken yalan söylemek zorunda kalmıştır. ...3. Daire beyanı yalandır. Askeri Yargıtay hüküm mahkemesinin uzlaşmaz çelişmelerini hasıraltı etme ve gizleme gayreti içindedir. ...Askeri Yargıtay hüküm mahkemesinin bu çok çirkin ve ayıp olan kurnazlıklarını tarafımdan deşifre edilmemiş olsaydı bu kurnazlığı sürdürmekte başarılı kalabilirdi. ... Askeri Mahkemelerin, sağcı güçlerin ne kadar yanında ve kontrolünde olduğunu açıkca göstermektedir. ...”\n<Translation>\n“The Military Court of Cassation had to lie when it said that these allegations were untrue. ... The Military Court of Cassation is trying to cover up the contradictions of the lower court. ... If I had not exposed the ugly and shameful tricks of the Military Court of Cassation, they could have successfully maintained their course. ... [This] shows how much the Military Courts are next to and under the control of the right wing powers. ...” 7. “The case of İsmail Beşikçi from the point of view of scientific methodology, academic autonomy and the principles of a democratic society I - The Supreme Administrative Court cases, the indictment and the observations on the merits” (“Bilimsel yöntem, Üniversite özerkliği ve demokratik toplum ilkeleri açısından Ismail Beşikçi davası I-Danıştay davaları, iddianame, esas hakkındaki mütalaa”)", "22. This book consisted of documents and comments concerning the administrative proceedings involving İsmail Beşikçi. The criminal proceedings were dismissed by the Ankara State Security Court on the ground that the book was the continuation of another book for which the applicant had already been convicted.", "23. Another publishing company originally published this book in March 1991. A trial against the publisher resulted in an acquittal on 5 June 1991 following the repeal of Article 142 of the Criminal Code.", "24. In March 1992 the applicant re-published the book. He was unsuccessfully prosecuted in 1994 because of a time-bar. 9. “The case of İsmail Beşikçi from the point of view of scientific methodology, academic autonomy and the principles of a democratic society IV - Application to the Court of Cassation” (“Bilimsel yöntem, Üniversite özerkliği ve demokratik toplum ilkeleri açısından Ismail Beşikçi davası IV-Yargıtay'a başvuru”)", "25. This book consisted of documents and comments concerning the appeal before the Court of Cassation in the legal proceedings brought against İsmail Beşikçi in the Martial Law Court in 1980. The following statements were highlighted in the prosecution:\n“... Kürt gerçeğini ve Kürdistan gerçeğini inkar eden hiç bir yargılama süreci geçerli değildir. 1971 duruşmalarında mahkemelere devletin yasaları hatırlatıyor, yasalara uyulması gerektiğini vurguluyorduk. Devletin kendi yasalarına neden uymadığının çözümlemesi yapıldı. Bu çözümleme sonucunda artık devletin yasalarının meşru olmadığını vurgulamaya çalışıyoruz. Kürtlerin ulusal varlığını, Kürtçenin varlığını inkar eden hiç bir düşünce ve tavır, davranış meşru değildir. ...”\n<Translation>\n“... No proceedings which deny the Kurdish and Kurdistan reality can be valid. In the 1971 hearings we were reminding the courts of the laws of the State and telling them to apply the law. It has now been resolved why the State did not abide by its own rules. We are now trying to emphasise that the rules of the State are no longer legitimate. No idea or action which denies the national existence of the Kurds and of their language is legitimate. ...”", "26. The book consisted of documentation generated during the trials which took place prior to the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The trials in question resulted in acquittals. This documentation consists of various indictments, petitions and court decisions. Although the author was convicted and the book confiscated, the prosecution against the applicant was time-barred.", "27. This book was a compilation of İsmail Beşikçi's essays previously published in certain newspapers. The following statements were highlighted in the prosecution:\n“... Gerilla mücadelesi gerek Kürdistan'da gerek Türkiye'de toplumsal ve ekonomik yapıları, siyasal kurumların değer sistemlerini yoğun bir şekilde etkilemektedir. Özgürlük hareketinin bilime ihtiyacı büyüktür. Özgürlük hareketi bunun bilincindedir. Özgürlük hareketi demokrasi, özgürlük, eşitlik, hukuk, hukukun evrensel ilkeleri, bağımsızlık, ulusların eşitliği, uluslarin kendi geleceklerini tayin, insan hakları gibi kategorilerinde bilincindedir. ... Son yıllarda Kürt toplumunda çok büyük siyasal ve toplumsal değişmeler oluyor. ... Kürt insanı artık toplumsal ve kültürel değerlerinin sömürgeci güçler tarafından tamamen gasp edilmiş olduğunun farkına ve bilincine varıyor. Bunlara yeniden sahip çıkmanın çabası içinde. ...\n...PKK geniş Kürt halk yığınlarının gönlündedir, yüreklerindedir. PKK geniş Kürt halk kitlelerinin beyinlerine girmiştir. Kürt halkı PKK olmuştur. Zira özgürlük sadece Kıbrıs Türkleri'nin, Bosna Hersek'teki müslümanların, Karabağ'daki Azeriler'in özlemi değildir. Özgürlük Kürtlerin de hakkıdır.”\n<Translation>\n“...the guerrilla struggle strongly influences the social and economic structures as well as the value systems of the political institutions, both in Kurdistan and in Turkey. The need for science in freedom movements is great. The freedom movement is conscious of this. The freedom movement is aware of the categories such as democracy, liberty, equality, law, universal principles of law, equality between States, independence, the right to self determination and Human Rights. ... There have been very big political and social changes in the Kurdish population in recent years. ... The Kurds are now conscious that their social and cultural values have been totally seized by the colonial powers. It is trying to regain them....\nThe PKK[1] is in the hearts and souls of the broad mass of Kurdish people; it has penetrated their minds. They have become one with the PKK. For freedom is not the sole prerogative of Turks in Cyprus, Muslims in Bosnia Herzegovina or the people of Karabagh in Azerbaijan. Freedom is the right of the Kurds as well.”", "28. This book consisted of the indictment filed against both the applicant and the author İsmail Beşikçi by the public prosecutor at the State Security Court, the decision delivered against them and the defence statements submitted by İsmail Beşikçi to the Court of Cassation, in the proceedings concerning the book “Raising consciousness”, together with his comments. The following statements were highlighted in the prosecution:\n“... Türkiye'de Kürtlere karşı son derece yoğun ve yaygın ve sürekli bir devlet terörü uygulanmaktadır. Kürdistan'ın Kürt köyleri yakılmakta ve yıkılmaktadır. PKK'nın son yıllarda özellikle son bir yıl içinde çok derin ve yaygın bir gelişme süreci içine girmiştir. ...Kürt sorunu ulusal bir sorundur. Kürt sorununun temelinde Kürdistan'ın ve ulusunun emperyalistlerce ve onların ortadeğerindeki işbirlikçi hükümekleri tarafından işbirlikçi ve güçbirliği yaparak bölünmesi, parçalanması ve paylaşılması ve Kürtlerin bağımsız devlet kurma haklarının gasp edilmesi yatar. Kürtler kendilerine uygulanan böl-yönet politikalarına 70 yılı aşkın bir zamandır karşı koyuyorlar. Silahlı mücadele ediyorlar. ...Gerilla hareketlerini sömürgeciliği yok etmenin bir yolu olarak değerlendirmenin daha doğru olacağı kanısındayım. ... Kürtler henüz yirmi yaşına bile ulaşmamış genc insanlar, Kürdistan için ölüme gidiyorlar. Bu inanç, bu direnç ancak ulusa ve ulusun kimliğine duyulan güvenden ileri gelebilir. ...”\n<Translation>\n“...extremely intense, widespread and persistent State terrorism is practised against the Kurds in Turkey. Kurdish villages in Kurdistan are being burnt and destroyed. The PKK has entered a very profound and widespread process of development in recent years and in particular during last year. ... The Kurdish question is a national one. The imperialists' and their collaborators' plans to divide and share Kurdistan and the Kurdish nation, and the seizure of the right of the Kurdish people to found an independent state, form the basis of the Kurdish question. ... The Kurds have been resisting for over 70 years this policy of 'divide and rule'. They are fighting with guns. ... The Kurds were made slaves. ... I believe that it is more correct to evaluate the guerrilla movement as a way to eradicate colonialism. ... Kurds, young people who are barely 20 years old, chose to die for Kurdistan. This belief, this resistance, can only stem from the trust one feels for the nation and the national identity. ...”", "29. The book was a collection of writings by İsmail Beşikçi. The prosecution drew attention to the following paragraphs:\n“... Bu kitapta iki inceleme yer almaktadır. Birincisi bireysel başvurunun sömürgedeki değeri başlığını taşımaktadır. Alt sömürge Kürdistan'da gelişen gerilla mücadelesi, toplumsal ve siyasal gelişmeler karşısında bireysel başvurunun ne anlama geldiği konusu tartışılmaktadır. ... Türkiye'nin Kürdistan'da gerçekleştirdiği operasyonları ise değil suçluya karşı muamele, düşmana karşı muamele kavramı içinde açıklamak mümkün değildir. Türkiye alt sömürge Kürdistan'da zamana yayılmış bir soykırım gerçekleştirmektedir. ...\n...Kürtler Türkiye'de son birkaç yıla kadar inkar ediliyorlardı. Kürtlerin ulusal ve toplumsal varlığı ısrarla inkar ediliyordu. Kürtlerin aslının Türk olduğu vurgulanıyordu ... ve bu görüş, bu anlayış resmi ideolojinin en önemli boyutunu meydana getiriyordu. ... 10 yılı aşkın bir zamandır süren gerilla mücadelesinin fiili kazanımlarından dolayı Türk devleti artık Kürtlerin varlığını, Kürtçe'nin varlığını inkar edemiyor, Kürt diye bilinen bir millet yoktur, Kürtçe diye bilinen bir dil yoktur diyemiyor. ... Bugün devletin Kürtlere söylediği şey şudur: İlkel dilinizi köyünüzde, evinizde, tarlanızda vs konuşabilirsiniz. Kürt kökenli olduğunuzu söyleyebilirsiniz. Fakat Türkiye'de yaşamak için Türk olmak, Türkleşmek zorundasınız. Türk gibi yaşamak zorundasınız. ...\nTürkiye'nin, Kürdistan'da uyguladığı politikanın yoğun bir devlet terörünün içerdiği acıktır. Devlet terörünün oluşması ve tırmanması Kürt kimliğinin ve Kürdistan kimliğinin inkarı ile yakından ilgilidir. ... Kürtler belirli bir düşünce etrafında örgütlenmeye başlasa o örgüt hemen yasaklanmakta, kapatılmakta, etkinliği yok edilmeye çalışılmaktadır. ... PKK'nın 1970'li yılların sonlarında kurulusunu ve 1980'lı yılların başında silahlı mücadeleye başlamasını bu çerçeve içinde değerlendirmek gerekir. Devlet Kürtlere kendilerini ifade edebilmek için silaha başvurmaktan baksa hiçbir yol bırakmamıştır. ... Bunlara rağmen Avrupa Devletleri çağdaş değerleri değil ırkçılığı ve sömürgeciliği savunuyorlar. Devlet terörünü görmezden geliyorlar. Böylece Devlet terörünü teşvik ediyorlar. Devlet terörüne karşı mücadele eden özgürlük hareketini PKK'nın uyguladığı şiddeti ise büyütüyorlar. ...”\n<Translation>\n“There are two studies in this book. The first concerns the right of individual petition and its value in a colony. It discusses the meaning of individual petition in the context of guerrilla warfare and the social and political developments in the sub-colony of Kurdistan ... It is impossible to qualify the operations performed by Turkey in Kurdistan as 'action against an enemy', let alone as 'the treatment of accused people'. Turkey is perpetrating genocide over a period of time in the sub-colony of Kurdistan ... The Kurds in Turkey were denied an existence until a few years ago. Their national and social existence was persistently denied. It was emphasised that the origin of the Kurds was 'Turkish' ... and this opinion, this concept, constituted the most important aspect of the official ideology ... The Turkish State can no longer deny the existence of Kurds or Kurdish as a result of the effective gains of the guerrilla struggle which has been going on for over 10 years; [it] can no longer say that there is no Kurdish nation or Kurdish language ... The State's message to the Kurds today is: You may speak your primitive language in your villages, your homes, your fields, etc. You may say that you are of Kurdish origin. But in order to live in Turkey you must become Turks. You must live like Turks. ...\nIt is evident that the policy conducted by Turkey in Kurdistan involves intense State terror. The development and rise of this terror is closely related to the denial of the Kurdish and Kurdistan identity. ... As soon as the Kurds start to organise around a specific idea, then that organisation is banned, closed, and an attempt is made to eliminate its effectiveness. ... The establishment of the PKK at the end of the 1970's and the start of its armed struggle at the beginning of the 1980's should be assessed in this context. The State did not leave any other way for the Kurds to express themselves other than by guns. ... Despite this, the European States, instead of defending contemporary values, defend racism and colonialism. They pretend not to see the State terror. Therefore, they encourage it. They exaggerate the violence perpetrated by the PKK liberation movement in its fight against State terror.” 14. “Dysfunctional prohibitions: prohibitions of thought and fraud” (“Işlevsizleşen yasaklar: düşünce yasakları, dolandırıcılık yasakları)", "30. The book contained a collection of indictments filed against İsmail Beşikçi, the judgments of the courts and defence statements made by İsmail Beşikçi, together with his comments. The following paragraphs were highlighted by the first-instance court:\n“PKK önderliğinde Kürdistan'da cereyan eden mücadele ulusal ve toplumsal kurtuluş mücadelesidir. Hiç bir ulusal kurtuluş mücadelesin de şiddet kullanmadan başarıya ulaşamaz. ...Bu devlet terörü karşısında alt sömürge ulusal demokratik güçlerinin de belirli bir şiddet uygulamaları kaçınılmaz olmaktadır. ...Devlet kürtlere karşı sistematik bir katliam yapmaktadır, soykırım uygulaması içermektedir. ...”\n<Translation>\n“The struggle led by the PKK in Kurdistan is a national and social liberation struggle. No national liberation struggle can be successful without the use of force. ... In the face of State terror, it becomes inevitable for the sub-colony's national democratic forces to use certain force. ... The State is conducting a systematic massacre of Kurds; [it] contains a practice of genocide. ...”", "31. The court also pointed out that the book openly revealed the identities of security force officials at its pages 23 and 38, referring to some articles published in the Özgür Gündem newspaper on 1 February and 13 February 1994 respectively.", "32. The books in question, published in 1991 and 1992, were as follows:\n- “State terror in the Middle East” (“Ortadoğu'da devlet terörü”);\n- “The compulsory settlement of Kurds” (“Kürtlerin mecburi iskanı”);\n- “Interstate colony: Kurdistan” (“Devletlerarası sömürge: Kürdistan”);\n- “A thesis of Turkish history, the sun-language theory and the Kurdish problem” (“Türk tarihi tezi, Güneş-dil teorisi ve kürt sorunu”);\n- “A letter to UNESCO” (“UNESCO'ya mektup”);\n- “The demolition of the police stations in our minds, trial periods and becoming free” (“Zihinlerimizdeki karakolların yıkılması, yargılama süreçleri ve özgürleşme”);\n- “The scientific method” (“Bilimsel Metod”);\n- “The system of East Anatolia, on a socio-economic and ethnic basis I” (“Doğu Anadolu'nun düzeni, sosyo-ekonomik ve etnik temeli- I”);\n- “The system of East Anatolia, on a socio-economic and ethnic basis II” (“Doğu Anadolu'nun düzeni, sosyo-ekonomik ve etnik temeli - II”);\n- “Scientifically official ideology, State democracy and the Kurdish problem” (“Bilim-resmi ideoloji, devlet, demokrasi ve kürt sorunu”);\n- “The Republican people's party, the Constitution (1927) and the Kurdish problem” (“Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkası'nın tüzüğü (1927) ve Kürt problemi”);\n- “Conditions for uprising” (“Başkaldırının koşulları”);\n- “The Tunceli Law 1935 and the Dersim Genocide” (“Tunceli Kanunu 1935 ve Dersim Jenosidi”);\n- “The imperialist, divisive struggle over Kurdistan” (“Kürdistan üzerinde emperyalist bölüşüm mücadelesi”).", "33. In its decision of 22 May 1997, convicting the applicant, the Ankara State Security Court referred to a number of passages in the books and held that they propagated separatism and openly praised terrorist organisations. In particular, the court stated that the PKK was an armed gang and did not represent the Kurds. In this connection, the court considered that the author's persistent praise of the PKK, as defenders of the rights and liberties of certain citizens, necessitated condemnation under Law no. 3713. It further found that the main idea behind these books was to oppose Turks and Kurds against one another. The court noted that the author considered the legitimate actions of the State, against an armed gang seeking to destroy democratic rights, as terrorism.", "34. This book, written by Günay Aslan, was a collection of graffiti and caricatures about the south-east. The graffiti used were distortions of famous words, song or commercials in Turkey. The prosecution drew attention to the following paragraphs:\n“Ve Tanrı PKK'yı yarattı. ...\nSana bir tokat atana sen de bir roket at! ...\nFaili meçhul ölmemiz ırsidir, isyanlarımızdan bize geçmiştir. İmza: Kürt Halkı. ...\nKonuşan Türkiye, susan Kurdistan demektir. ...\nTuvalet duvarına 'Yaşasın PKK' diye yazsak, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti devletinin ülkesi ve milleti ile bölünmez bütünlüğüne yönelik bölücü mahiyette propaganda yapmak suçuna girer mi?\nPKK girse de yaşar, girmese de yaşar. ...\nBir gün gelecek bütün Kürtleri imha edeceğiz. Imza: Özel Tim ...\nO bir gün hiç gelmeyecek! İmza: PKK ...”\n<translation>\n“And God created the PKK! ...\nIf somebody slaps you in the face, send him a rocket! ...\nIt is a genetic trait that we die by the hand of unknown perpetrators, inherited through insurrections. Signed: the Kurdish people. ...\nFree speaking Turkey means silenced Kurdistan ...\nIf we write 'Long live the PKK' on a toilet wall, would this constitute separatist propaganda aiming at the indivisibility of the Turkish nation?\n- The PKK will live long no matter what! ...\n- A day will come when we will destroy all the Kurds. Signed: the Special Forces...\n- That day will never come! Signed: the PKK ...”", "35. The book was written by Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK. It was first published in May 1991 in Germany. The book was published in Turkey in November 1992. The foreword to the book included the statement that the ideas and views of Abdullah Öcalan were distorted by State press organs and that this was unfair to the public who needed to form an independent opinion of Abdullah Öcalan. Therefore, the books and articles which conveyed his opinions should be published. The applicant further accused the State of considering those who shared a different opinion to be terrorists. Finally, he wrote that he was presenting the views of Abdullah Öcalan, who was an authority on the Kurdish national movement, to the public since this movement was of public interest. 18. “The screaming breath of the murdered miner - the Bosphorus occupation” (“Boğaziçi Işgali- Katledilen madencinin haykıran soluğu”)", "36. The book edited by Naile Tuncer and published in October 1992 consisted of a diary by some TIKB[2] militants who occupied the University of Boğaziçi for a few days in protest against an explosion in a coal mine that had occurred in March 1992. It contained press releases of the organisation, official documents relating to the event and photographs. On the book cover there appeared a partially obscured banner with the name of the TIKB.", "37. In condemning the applicant on 20 December 1994 under Article 7 § 5 of Law no. 3713, the Ankara State Security held that the TIKB was an illegal organisation since it continued its illegal armed activities. The mining accident had been a mere pretext for disseminating propaganda on behalf of that organisation. The applicant served the six month prison sentence which was imposed and paid the fine. He did not appeal as he had missed the deadline for its submission.", "38. This book was dedicated to the memory of Musa Anter, who had been killed in Diyarbakır. The anthology consists of messages of condolence and articles previously published in some newspapers selected by Yaşar Kaya. The prosecution highlighted the following paragraphs:\n“O gelişen Kürt ulusal özgürlük mücadelesine inandı. Özgürlük mücadelesinin gerçekleri düşmana inat dobra dobra 'Genç olsaydım dağa çıkar gerillaya katılırdım' diyebilen bir yiğitti. ... Ölümünden sonra özgür Gündem'e yüzlerce mesaj geldi. Kimisi ona Kürt bilgesi diyordu. Kimisi Apo Musa diyordu. Kimisi 70 yıllık çınar ağacımız kimisi 70 yıllık canlı tarihimiz, kimisi ulusumuzun yiğit evladı diyordu. Kurtolog ve Kürt aydını, Kürt bilgesi olmanın yanında bütün bu sıfatları haketmiş ve gönüllere taht kurmuş bir insandı. ...\nMusa Anter'in katili tek kelimeyle TC.'dir. ...\nMusa Anter'in deyimi ile Bizans'ın, Kürtler'in ve arabın kültürü üzerine konan bu karanlık Türkçülük kimin Türkçülüğüdür? Türkler'den %10, Araplar'dan %50, Kürt ve Farslar'dan %35 oluşan bu dil hangi Türk'ün dilidir? ... Korkusundan kendisine Türküm diyen ama gerçekte Türk olmayan Anadolu'nun azınlıklarını uyandıran herkesten korkuyorlar. ... ve yalan ülkenin sahtekar sahipleri, yalan üzerine kurulu sistemleri ile yerle bir olacaklardır....\nDevlet bu politikaları ile Kürt halkını teslim almaya ... tek tek insanları öldürmekten, şekillerin imhasına kadar her türlü katliamı deniyor ... işlediği cinayetlere Türk halkını da ortak ediyor.”\n<translation>\n“He believed in the Kurds' growing struggle for freedom. He was a hero, who was able to say, 'If I were young I would go to the mountains and join the guerrillas,' in the face of the enemy without fear ... After his demise, hundreds of messages reached the Özgür Gündem newspaper office. Some people called him the Kurdish sage. Some called him Apo Musa. Some said he was 'our 70 year old plane tree, our 70 year old living history, or the hero of our nation'. Besides being a Kurdologist, a Kurdish intellectual, a Kurdish sage, he was a person who deserved all these titles, loved by everyone. ...\nThe murderer of Musa Anter is simply the Turkish Republic. ...\nAs Musa Anter put it: what sort of nationalism is this sinister Turkish kind which arises from the inherited cultures of Byzantium, the Kurds and the Arabs? What Turkish language are we talking about when that language is made up of 10% Turkish, 50% Arabic and 35% Kurdish and Persian? ... They are afraid of anyone who might awaken the minorities of Anatolia, who only admit to being Turkish out of fear. ... One day the fraudulent proprietors of this dishonest country, together with their dishonest politics, will be shattered. ...\nIn order to defeat the Kurds, the State is trying every possible method of destruction, from killing people one by one .... and it is associating the Turkish nation with its murders.”", "39. The Government, in their additional observations, dated 3 October 2003, informed the Court that on 10 September 1996 the Ankara State Security Court had merged the fines given in eight cases[3] which amounted to 432,200,000 Turkish Liras (TRL). However, since the applicant had failed to pay on time, his fine was converted into a prison sentence. They further submitted that, by a decision of the Ankara State Security Court of 9 April 2003, the applicant's criminal records were erased.", "40. By a letter dated 8 June 2004, the applicant informed the Court that he had been imprisoned for the first time between 22 November 1994 and 27 November 1995 and for a second time between 26 September 1996 and 11 March 1997. He stated that he had spent a total of one year, five months and twenty days in prison." ]	[ 6 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Jarocin.", "5. On 20 April 1993 the applicant lodged a petition for a divorce with the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).", "6. The Poznań Regional Court held hearings on 24 August and 7 October 1993, 13 January and 26 April 1994.", "7. On 1 June 1994 the court ordered an expert opinion. It was submitted to the court on 29 August 1994.", "8. Further hearings were held on 15 November 1994, 7 February 1995, 25 April 1995, 10 August 1995, 7 November 1995 and 16 May 1996.", "9. On 5 June 1996 the applicant specified his claim and accepted that custody rights be granted to his wife.", "10. On 13 September 1996 the court ordered fresh expert evidence. The court requested the Department of Psychology of the Poznań University to expedite the preparation of the opinion on the applicant's child's emotional development.", "11. On 21 January 1997 the hearing was adjourned, in order to give the experts more time to prepare the opinion.", "12. On 24 January 1997 the court requested the Psychology Department to send back the case file and to submit the opinion. The file was sent back on 21 March 1997; however, no opinion was submitted.", "13. On 21 April 1997 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the length of the proceedings. On 3 June 1997 the Ministry of Justice examined the facts and considered that the applicant's complaint was justified.", "14. The court held further hearings on 26 June 1997, 23 July 1997, 18 September 1997, 24 November 1997, 26 January 1998, 16 March 1998, 20 April 1998, 8 June 1998 and 13 July 1998.", "15. On 26 August 1998 the applicant sent another letter to the Ministry of Justice complaining about the length of the proceedings. In September 1998 the case was put under the administrative supervision of the Ministry of Justice.", "16. The Department of Psychology of the Poznań University failed to submit the relevant expert opinion. As a consequence, the court ordered a new expert opinion on 6 October 1998.", "17. On 4 December 1998, upon the applicant's further complaint, the Ombudsman examined the case and considered the complaint justified. The Ombudsman requested the President of the Poznań Regional Court to take the necessary steps to accelerate the proceedings.", "18. On 22 February 1999 and 8 March 1999 the court held hearings.", "19. On 22 March 1999 the Poznań Regional Court gave judgment and dissolved the applicant's marriage. The court awarded parental rights to both parents and ordered that the child's permanent residence be with the applicant.", "20. Both parties to the proceedings appealed. On 5 November 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 7 January 2000." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in the town of Makeyevka, the Donetsk region, Ukraine.", "5. On 8 April 1998 the Girnytskiy District Court (the Girnytskiy Court) ordered the State Joint Stock Company “Cheluskintsyv mine” (the Mine) to pay the applicant UAH 6,388[1] in compensation for the applicant's occupational disability.", "6. In November 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Petrovskiy District Court (the Petrovskiy Court) against the Mine seeking recovery of disability allowance debt and compensation for loss of earnings and for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.", "7. On 9 December 1998 the Petrovskiy Court found in part for the applicant and ordered the Mine to pay him UAH 6,496.59[2] for disability allowance debt, in compensation for loss of earnings and for damages.", "8. The applicant did not appeal in cassation against this decision.", "9. On an unspecified date the President of the Donetsk Regional Court, following the applicant's complaint, lodged a protest with the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court seeking initiation of supervisory review proceedings in respect of the decision of the Petrovskiy Court of 9 December 1998. On 24 March 1999 the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court allowed the protest, quashed the decision of 9 December 1998 as to part of the award and remitted this part of the case for a fresh consideration.", "10. On 17 June 1999 the Petrovskiy Court found in part for the applicant and ordered the Mine to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 2,443.19[3] and a monthly allowance of UAH 146.29[4] for an unlimited period of time in compensation for loss of earnings. The court held that the applicant was entitled to payment of the monthly allowance from 1 June 1999.", "11. By a separate procedural decision of the same date, the court rejected the remainder of the applicant's claim on the ground that on 8 April 1998 the Girnytskiy Court had delivered a judgment in the case between the same parties relating to the same facts.", "12. The applicant did not appeal in cassation against the judgment or separate procedural decision of the Petrovskiy Court of 17 June 1999.", "13. On 9 June 2000 a judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine informed the applicant that the Deputy President of that court had rejected the applicant's request for supervisory review of the decisions of the Petrovskiy Court of 9 December 1998 and 17 June 1999 and the decision of the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court of 24 March 1999.", "14. On 3 June 1998 and 1 July 1999, respectively, the Petrovskiy District Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of the Girnytskiy Court of 8 April 1998 and of the Petrovskiy Court of 17 June 1999.", "15. In October 1999 the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice (the “DRDJ”) informed the applicant that the above judgments were not executed due to the debtor's lack of funds and to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against it. The DRDJ further stated that the applicant was number 57 on the creditors' waiting list in respect of enforcement of the judgments in his favour and that he had been paid UAH 100[5] to date.", "16. By letter of 30 January 2001, the Petrovskiy District Bailiffs' Service (the Bailiffs' Service) informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been suspended from January 1999 to June 2000 pending the bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor and that the judgments were not enforced due to the debtor's lack of funds. It also informed him that the total amount he had received to date in respect of both judgments was UAH 150[6].", "17. On 24 July 2002 the DRDJ informed the applicant that the procedure for the forced sale of the debtor's assets was suspended due to the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the President and the Parliament, as well as due to the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the debtor. The department of justice also stated that the applicant had been paid UAH 519.33[7] to date.", "18. In 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Petrovskiy Court against the Bailiffs' Service seeking recovery of occupational disability debt and for compensation. On 24 September 2002 the court found against the applicant. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.", "19. On 12 September 2003 the Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of the Girnytskiy Court of 8 April 1998 and the judgment of the Petrovskiy Court of 17 June 1999, in its part concerning the lump sum award, had been enforced in full.", "20. The applicant did not challenge the decision of the Bailiffs' Service of 12 September 2003 before the domestic courts.", "21. The Government maintained that the judgments of the Girnytskiy and Petrovskiy Courts of 8 April 1998 and 17 June 1999 had been enforced in full by instalments. According to the Government, the monthly allowance awarded by the judgment of Petrovskiy Court has been paid by the Mine to the applicant up to 31 April 2001. Afterwards, the obligation to pay the monthly allowance for loss of earnings was taken up by the Girnytskiy District Department of the State Social Security Fund in accordance with domestic law. The amount of the monthly allowance was thereafter reviewed by the fund and the applicant was granted UAH 237.64[8] in compensation for loss of earnings.", "22. The applicant maintained that the judgments in his favour in the part of the lump sum awards had not been enforced in full, although he failed to articulate precisely the amount of the alleged outstanding debt.", "23. The applicant did not reply to the Court's request to indicate whether the monthly allowance of UAH 146.29[9] had been paid to him in accordance with the judgment of the Petrovskiy Court of 17 June 1999." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "6. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Chişinău. He worked as the secretary of the Chişinău Municipal Council.", "7. On 8 October 2004 the Prosecutor General initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for alleged abuse of power under Article 327 § 2 of the Criminal Code, in relation to a purchase of 40 ambulances by the Chişinău Mayoralty.", "8. On 12 November 2004 the applicant was arrested by officer G.G. from the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC). On 15 November 2004 the Buiucani District Court issued a warrant for his remand in custody for 10 days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the warrant were that:\n“The criminal file was opened in accordance with the law in force. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence for which the law provides imprisonment for more than two years; the evidence submitted to the court was obtained lawfully; the isolation of the suspect from society is necessary; he could abscond from law enforcement authorities or the court; he could obstruct the finding of truth in the criminal investigation or re-offend”.", "9. On 18 November 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partly quashed that decision and adopted a new one, ordering the applicant’s house arrest. The court found that:\n“The [lower] court did not commit any procedural mistakes, but taking into account that [the applicant] has a permanent place of residence, has no criminal record, is ill and requires treatment in conditions of non-isolation from society and that there is no specific information about the probability of his absconding from the law-enforcement authorities, the [court] considers that in the present case the normal flow of the criminal investigation will be ensured if the accused is subjected to the preventive measure of house arrest. The [court] also notes that the criminal file was opened on 8 October 2004 and that on 13 and 16 November 2004 the applicant was summonsed by the [law-enforcement authorities] as a witness, but on 12 November 2004 he was taken into custody, and no newly discovered circumstances requiring his detention were submitted. Besides, it is necessary to take into account the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the offence with which the applicant is charged is also punishable with a fine.”", "10. On 19 November 2004 the applicant was again arrested on suspicion of having committed the offence of exceeding the limits of his powers in exercising a public function, contrary to Article 328 § 1 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the same purchase of ambulances referred to in paragraph 7 above. The reason given for the arrest was that “eye witnesses can testify that this person has committed a crime”.", "11. On 22 November 2004 the President of the Buiucani District Court issued a warrant for his detention for 10 days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the warrant were that:\n“[the applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence, for which the law provides imprisonment for more than two years; the evidence submitted to the court was obtained lawfully; the isolation of the suspect from society is necessary; he could abscond from law enforcement authorities or the court; he could obstruct the finding of the truth in the criminal investigation or re-offend”.", "12. The applicant submitted arguments against the necessity of applying the preventive measure of detention and focused on his bad state of health. He referred to concrete facts, such as that since his first arrest he had never obstructed in any way the investigation and had appeared before the authorities whenever summonsed. His conduct regarding the investigation had always been irreproachable. He had a family, had property in Moldova and none abroad, and several newspapers were ready to guarantee his freedom in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant was ready to give up his passport as an assurance that he would not leave the country.", "13. On 25 November 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Buiucani District Court of 22 November 2004. The court gave no specific reasons for its decision other than to confirm the lawfulness of the lower court’s decision.", "14. On 26 November 2004 the President of the Buiucani District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand for another 30 days until 29 December 2004. The court reasoned that detention was necessary because:\n“[the applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence; there is a risk that he may put pressure on witnesses or put himself out of the reach of law enforcement authorities; and there is a continuing need to isolate him from society”.", "15. On 2 December 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal without relying on any new arguments.", "16. On 14 December 2004 the President of the Buiucani District Court rejected a habeas corpus request made by the applicant, stating that:\n“according to the criminal file, [the applicant] is accused of having committed a less serious offence, for which the law provides the punishment of deprivation of liberty for more than two years.”", "17. On 20 December 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 14 December 2004.", "18. Also on 20 December 2004 officer G.G., the investigator who had arrested the applicant and who had been in charge of the case since 10 September 2004, made a declaration during a press conference. He essentially stated that the case against the Mr Urecheanu and other accused in the “ambulances case” was fabricated for political reasons in order to remove political opponents. There was nothing in the file, according to G.G., which would warrant the initiation of the criminal proceedings or the arrest of the applicant.", "19. On 21 December 2004 the investigation ended and the criminal file was referred to the Centru District Court. According to the domestic law, no prolongation of detention on remand was necessary after that and the applicant remained in custody pending a final judgment favourable to him or a court decision to end his detention.", "20. On 13 January 2005, during the first hearing on the merits of the criminal case, the applicant submitted another habeas corpus request and expressed his readiness to present further guarantees against absconding. He based his request, inter alia, on his weak state of health and on the declarations made by the investigator G.G. on 20 December 2004. At the prosecutor’s request, the court postponed the hearing until 20 January 2005 in order to decide on joining the applicant’s case with that of other suspects.", "21. On 20 January 2005 the court accepted a prosecutor’s request to join the applicant’s case with three other criminal cases of persons who worked in the Chişinău Mayoralty. In reply to the applicant’s habeas corpus request, the court held that it would be for the court examining the joined cases to decide whether the continuing detention was necessary. He complained about the court’s failure to properly respond to his request.", "22. On 27 January 2005 the hearing was postponed.", "23. On 2 February 2005 the court rejected, by a final judgment, the applicant’s habeas corpus request, finding that:\n“[the applicant was remanded] because he is suspected of having committed a serious offence; he may abscond from the law enforcement authorities; and he may obstruct the finding of truth in the criminal process. The grounds on which the detention on remand was ordered remain valid.”", "24. On 16 February 2005 the Centru District Court rejected another habeas corpus request made by the applicant, finding that “the grounds for detaining the applicant on remand still hold”.", "25. The applicant has a medical condition called “progressive cervical osteoarthritis[1] (mielopatie) with displacement of vertebrae C5-C6-C7, with pain disorder” and has to wear permanently a device immobilizing his neck to minimize risk of fatal injuries to his spinal cord. He also suffers from gout and from arterial hypertension of second degree with increased risk of cardio-vascular complications, all confirmed by medical certificates.", "26. His complaint about the lack of sufficient medical assistance refers to the period of his detention in the CFECC remand centre between 12 November 2004 and 18 January 2005.", "27. Between 12 and 29 November 2004 (between 19 and 29 November according to the Government) the applicant held a hunger strike. On 19 November 2004 (the day of his second arrest) he was consulted by Doctor A. E., who noted the applicant’s complaints about pain in his back and diagnosed him with serious arterial hypertension (hipertensiune arterială esenţială), giving him medication to decrease his blood pressure.", "28. According to the applicant, neither his family doctor, doctor G., nor any other doctor had been allowed to examine him while in detention until after communication of his application to the Government. He submitted copies of two requests lodged by his family doctor on 22 and 29 November 2004 by which he asked permission to examine the applicant or to have him examined by any other qualified doctor. Neither of the requests was allowed or even acknowledged.", "29. According to the Government, the applicant did not personally make any request to see doctor G. at any time during his detention.", "30. On 29 November 2004 the applicant fainted during a court hearing and was rushed to a detainee hospital, where he was treated until 20 December 2004.", "31. According to the applicant, he was not examined by any neurologist while in the hospital. His personal medical file shows that he complained on numerous occasions of pain in the cervical region of his spine and numbness in his fingers and arms (on 2, 7, 13 and 15 December 2004). Only on 15 December 2004 was he visited by a neurologist who concluded that: “an examination by a neurosurgeon is recommended in order to determine the appropriate treatment”. No such further examination took place.", "32. On 20 December 2004 he was released from hospital and taken back to the remand centre. According to his release form, he was “in a satisfactory condition with the recommendation of supervision by a general practitioner and a neurologist, checks of arterial blood pressure and administration of tablets....”", "33. On 20 December 2004 a prosecutor allowed a request by the applicant’s wife to have the applicant examined by a neurologist at the remand centre. However, the doctor did not have access to the applicant due to the CFECC administration’s refusal to allow that.", "34. According to the applicant there were no medical personnel in the remand centre.", "35. According to the Government, there was a doctor, R.V., who was a general practitioner and who had provided regular medical assistance to the applicant throughout his detention. In case of an emergency, detainees could have been transported to a nearby hospital.", "36. According to the applicant, due to the lack of medical assistance, he had had to use the opportunity to have his blood pressure measured through the bars of the cage in which he was held during court hearings.", "37. The Government did not dispute that, but rather stated that the general practitioner at the remand centre had provided the applicant with medical assistance whenever he requested it.", "38. According to the Medical Register of the remand centre, submitted by the Government, during the period with which the complaint is concerned the applicant was examined only on 19 November 2004. The next record regarding the applicant is on 19 January 2005. Doctor R.V.’s name appears for the first time, in all the documents submitted by the Government, on 11 February 2005.", "39. The applicant’s wife made numerous unsuccessful attempts (on 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 27 November 2004, as well as on 20 and 21 December 2004) to obtain permission to check on his state of health and to bring him various items. Both the applicant and his wife requested that an arterial blood monitor should be brought and, that instructions should be sought from doctor G. on how properly to use it. She was eventually allowed to give the items to the applicant.", "40. On 19 January 2005 the Centru District Court allowed the applicant’s request to be examined by a doctor. On the same day he was examined by the Head of the Therapy Section of the Pruncul Hospital, who noted in the Medical Register (see paragraph 38 above) that the applicant did not complain about his health.", "41. Doctor G., who examined the applicant on 26 January 2005, concluded that his condition had substantially worsened due to the combination of the three diseases (see paragraph 25 above). In the event of lack of medical treatment, the applicant ran serious risks for his life and health. Failure permanently and correctly to monitor and react to changes in his arterial pressure, level of uric acid and other signs could lead to serious effects including myocardium infarct and cerebral-vascular accidents and even sudden death.", "42. Professor Z., the Head of the Neurology Chair of the “Nicolae Testimiteanu” hospital, was allowed to see the applicant in prison on 25 January 2005. The applicant complained of pain and numbness in his hands, of headaches and of the lack of constant supervision by a specialized doctor. In his report, professor Z. referred only to the applicant’s cervical osteoarthritis and did not recommend hospitalisation. He recommended treatment with symptomatic medication, limitation of physical movement and the permanent wearing of the neck-fixing device. While he found no major risk to the patient’s life due to osteoarthritis, he admitted that there was a constant risk of worsening of the condition of his nervous system. He considered that in case of aggravation of the applicant’s state of health, he would need neurosurgical treatment in a specialised clinic.", "43. Two other doctors, doctor S.G. and doctor M.G., who examined the applicant’s medical files in late January 2005, while referring to the applicant’s cervical osteoarthritis, submitted that this disease could ultimately lead to permanent loss of movement and to negative effects for the cardio-vascular system. Doctor S.G. recommended medication, special gymnastics and consultation by a neurosurgeon in order to determine the necessity of undergoing micro-neurosurgery. He also recommended the wearing of a neck immobilisation device. Doctor M.G. submitted that there was a serious risk for the applicant’s health linked to his osteoarthritis, including tetraparesis[2]. He recommended hospitalisation.", "44. A State Medical Commission created after the communication of the case to the Government found that cervical osteoarthritis presented a risk to the applicant’s health and that there was a possibility of an eventual increase in the pain suffered. The patient needed “a regime of adequate medical supervision and treatment on an out-patient basis (at home, at work, in prison)”. In a letter of 9 February 2005 to the Government Agent the Ministry of Health declared that high arterial blood pressure and gout required “an adequate psycho-emotional regime and the administration of medication prescribed by a doctor”.", "45. According to the applicant, except for one occasion, he was always brought to the court in handcuffs and placed in a metal cage during the hearings. The Government did not dispute that.", "46. According to the applicant the cell in which he was detained in the remand centre was overcrowded since it had 11 m2 for 4 persons and was too hot.", "47. According to the Government the applicant had been detained with only one more person in the cell and the temperature and other conditions were within acceptable limits. In support of their submissions the Government sent the Court a copy of a report of 11 February 2005, drafted by a sanitary-epidemiological inspection and pictures and a video showing the applicant’s cell.", "48. The room for meetings between lawyers and detainees in the remand centre had a double glass partition with holes which only partly coincided and which were covered with a thick net, to keep them separated. According to the applicant they had to shout in order to hear each other and could not exchange documents for signature.", "49. The Government did not dispute the existence of a glass partition and sent the Court a video with its images.", "50. On 15 February 2005 the applicant requested the Centru District Court to order the CFECC administration to provide a room for confidential meetings with his lawyer. On 16 February 2005 the court rejected the request on the ground that according to the CFECC administration, there were no recording devices installed in the meeting room and that the glass partition was necessary for the security of detainees and lawyers." ]	[ 1, 2 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the village of Krichka, the Ivano-Frankivs'k region of Ukraine.", "5. In 1987 the applicant's family was placed on the waiting list to receive an apartment from the State. By 1990 the applicant was first on the housing list. Nevertheless, the Executive Committee of the Dzvinyach Village Council, by a decision of 12 October 1990, gave an available apartment to another person. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Ivano-Frankivs'k Regional Court against the executive committee of the Village Council, challenging its decision.", "6. On 30 August 1991, the Ivano-Frankivs'k Regional Court found for the applicant and ordered the Village Council to assign the disputed apartment to the applicant. On 30 October 1991, the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the Regional Court.", "7. In 1996, as the judgment in her favour remained unenforced, the applicant requested the Bogorodchansky District Court to change the manner of enforcement and to order the Village Council to build her a house. On 7 October 1996, the court satisfied the applicant's request and changed the manner of execution accordingly.", "8. In 1997, as the judgment was still unenforced, the applicant requested the same district court to change the manner of execution again and to award her the pecuniary equivalent of the disputed apartment. On 16 June 1997, the Bogorodchansky District Court satisfied the applicant's request and awarded her UAH 29,600[1] in compensation.", "9. On 28 December 2000, the Head of the Bogorodchansky District Department of the State Bailiffs' Service issued an order to freeze all the current bank accounts of the Village Council in order to secure the payment of the judgment debt in the applicant's favour.", "10. On 26 January 2001, the Dzvinyach Village Council challenged the order of 28 December 2000 in the Bogorodchansky District Court. The enforcement proceedings were accordingly suspended.", "11. On 12 February 2001, the Bogorodchansky District Court found in part for the Village Council and quashed the order of the Bailiffs' Service with respect to two principal accounts containing the budget funds for social payments, salaries, etc. By the same decision the court allowed the other accounts of the debtor to be frozen.", "12. The applicant lodged a protest with the Deputy Chairman of the Ivano-Frankivs'k Regional Court to challenge this decision. The Deputy Chairman rejected her protest by his letter of 20 April 2001. On 8 October 2001, the panel of three judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal under the new cassation procedure.", "13. On 21 November 2002 the court decision of 16 June 1997 was enforced in full and the Bailiffs ended the enforcement proceedings." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "7. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Belfast.", "8. The applicant was the chair of the Irish Republican Felons Club[1], a registered social club operating on the Falls Road, Belfast. In May 1997, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”) carried out a search of the premises and removed many documents.", "9. The applicant was subsequently required to attend for interview with a financial investigator appointed under the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. He did so on 27 January 1998 and answered all questions put to him.", "10. On 16 April 1998, the applicant was charged by the police with false accounting and conspiracy to defraud.", "11. On 2 June 1998, a further notice was served on the applicant under the 1996 Order, requiring his attendance before financial investigators at a police station on 11 June 1998. The maximum penalty for failure to attend an interview was six months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding GBP 5,000. The notice, which was dated 1 June, stated that the investigation was into whether any person had benefited from theft or false accounting, contributing to the resources of a proscribed organisation or from contraventions of betting regulations. The applicant was required to attend at Woodbourne Police Station on 26 June 1998.", "12. On 9 June 1998, the applicant's solicitors sent a letter seeking a written guarantee that no information or statements obtained during the interview would be used in criminal proceedings.", "13. On 16 June 1998, a further notice, dated 16 June, was served on the applicant, again requiring him to attend the interview on 26 June 1998. The notice was served with a letter in which the investigators confirmed that they were aware of the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant. They set out the safeguards in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Order, and stated that the applicant therefore had the guarantees he sought. They added that paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 restricted the disclosure of information obtained by a financial investigator, and added that “this does not prevent the answers or information being used to further the investigation”.", "14. On 22 June 1998, the applicant's solicitor sent a letter to the financial investigators indicating that the applicant's replies could become admissible evidence at a trial and suggesting that the purpose of the interview was to compel him to disclose his defence. He added that the applicant had been advised not to attend an interview unless a satisfactory response to the letter was received.", "15. On 23 June 1998, the applicant's solicitor was informed by letter that the reason for the interview was not to force the applicant to disclose his defence but that a number of matters from the earlier interview required clarification and additional matters had also arisen.", "16. On a request by the investigators, on 25 June the applicant's representatives informed the investigators that the applicant would not attend the interview. The interview did not take place.", "17. On 14 September 1998, a summons charged the applicant with the offence of failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the financial investigator's requirement to answer questions or otherwise furnish information, contrary to paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1996 Order. On 25 February 1999, the applicant was convicted of this offence in the Magistrates' Court and fined the sum of GBP 200.", "18. On 5 July 2002, the Belfast County Court allowed the applicant's appeal against conviction, finding that the prosecution had not proved the absence of a reasonable excuse. The judge noted that the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal had dealt with a similar case (Clinton v. Bradley [2000] NI 196) which related to the same legislation and the same investigation. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal had held that as Parliament had put in place certain express limitations on the use of information obtained by investigators, it could not have intended that the person concerned could put forward the risk of self-incrimination as a “reasonable excuse”. In Clinton v. Bradley, however, the accused had refused to answer questions at an interview, and he had not been interviewed by the police, or charged with any offence.", "19. The judge further noted that one of the grounds on which the information obtained by investigators could be used in criminal proceedings was where evidence inconsistent with the information was relied on by the defence. That ground had been amended in the light of the Court's judgment in the case of Saunders v. the United Kingdom, and the amendment would have afforded the applicant the protection he sought had it been in place at the time. The judge took the view that once he had been questioned by the police and charged, the applicant had a right not to answer questions that would have tended to incriminate him. The only outstanding matter was whether the applicant should have attended the interview and then refused to answer questions, or, as he did, refuse to attend the interview once he failed to receive the assurances he had asked for. The judge regarded the distinction as technical, and found that the prosecution had failed to establish the absence of a “reasonable excuse” for not answering questions about the proceeds of a crime, with which he had been formally charged.", "20. On 17 July 2002, the prosecutor requested the County Court to state a case for the purpose of an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.", "21. On 11 December 2002, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland heard the appeal. On 20 December 2002, Lord Justice Carswell, giving judgment, considered, in the light of R. v. Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd ([2000] AC 326), that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is directed towards the fairness of the trial itself and is not concerned with extra-judicial inquiries “with the consequence that a person to whom those inquiries are directed does not have a reasonable excuse for failing or refusing to comply with a financial investigator's requirements merely because the information sought may be potentially incriminating”. The appeal was upheld, and the applicant's conviction confirmed.", "22. The criminal proceedings for false accounting and conspiracy to defraud (see § 10 above) were struck out on grounds of delay by the Belfast Magistrates' Court in June 2002. The magistrate was asked by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to state a case for the Court of Appeal, but he died before having prepared the stated case." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, the Donetsk region of Ukraine.", "5. In 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivka Town Court against the “Novogrodivska” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover unpaid salary.", "6. On 21 July 1999 the Novogrodivka Town Court found in favour of the applicant (рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded him UAH 2,567.06[1] in salary arrears and compensation for delay in their payment. The decision was not appealed and became final.", "7. On 5 August 1999 the Novogrodivka Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції) initiated enforcement proceedings. However, the decision was not executed.", "8. In June 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivka Town Court against the Bailiffs' Service for failure to execute the court decision in his favour. On 7 July 2000 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgment of 21 July 1999. Nevertheless, the latter remained unenforced until 2 July 2003, when it was finally executed." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the city of Novovolynsk, the Volyn region, Ukraine.", "5. On 2 August 2000 the applicant suffered an industrial injury and lost 80% of his capacity to work.", "6. On 30 January 2002 the Novovolynsk City Court ordered the Novovolynska State Mine (the “Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 65,767.80[1] in compensation for the applicant's occupational disability. By the same decision, the court ordered the Novovolynsk Department of the Social Security Fund to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 2,301.30[2] and a monthly allowance of UAH 615.05[3] for a period of one year in compensation for loss of earnings.", "7. On 22 March 2002 the Novovolynsk City Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings against the Mine.", "8. On 18 April 2002 the Bailiff's Service informed the applicant that the judgment was not enforced due to a large number of enforcement proceedings against the Mine and its lack of funds. The Bailiffs also informed her that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.", "9. In 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Novovolynsk City Court about the inactivity of the Head of the Bailiffs' Service in respect of the enforcement of the judgment at issue. On 26 November 2002 the court found for the applicant, declared the Bailiffs' Service's inactivity unlawful and ordered its Head to carry out supervision of the enforcement of the judgment by the Bailiffs' Service.", "10. On 27 December 2002, 24 March, 15 August and 19 December 2003 the applicant was paid a total of UAH 3,200[4] in the course of the enforcement of the award against the Mine.", "11. On 28 January 2004 the sum of UAH 58,917.80[5] was transferred to the applicant's bank account, out of which the applicant's bank deducted a fee of UAH 589.04[6].", "12. On 26 March, 28 April and 17 June 2004 the applicant received UAH 2,550[7], UAH 900[8] and UAH 200[9], respectively.", "13. On 17 June 2004 the Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of the Novovolynsk City Court of 30 January 2002 in the part concerning the award against the Mine had been enforced in full.", "14. The applicant did not challenge the decision of the Bailiffs' Service of 17 June 2004 before the domestic courts." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "12. The applicants were born in 1961 and 1962 respectively and live in Rosny-sous-Bois.", "13. In the spring of 1996 Mrs Draon began her first pregnancy. The second ultrasound scan, carried out in the fifth month of pregnancy, revealed an anomaly in the development of the foetus.", "14. On 20 August 1996 an amniocentesis was carried out at Saint‑Antoine hospital, run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP‑HP). The amniotic fluid sample was sent for analysis to the establishment’s cytogenetics laboratory (headed by Professor T.) with a request for karyotype and digestive enzyme analysis. In September 1996 T. informed the applicants that the amniocentesis showed the foetus had “a male chromosomal pattern with no anomaly detected”.", "15. R. was born on 10 December 1996. Very soon, multiple anomalies were observed, particularly defective psychomotor development. The examinations carried out led to the conclusion that there was a congenital cardiopathy due to a “chromosomal anomaly”.", "16. When informed of this T. admitted that his service had made the wrong diagnosis, the anomaly having already been entirely detectable at the time of the amniocentesis. He stated: “Concerning the child Draon R., ... we regret to have to say that there was indeed an asymmetry between the foetus’s two copies of chromosome 11; that anomaly or peculiarity escaped our attention”.", "17. According to the medical reports, R. presents cerebral malformations causing grave disorders, severe impairment and permanent total invalidity, together with arrested weight gain. This means that it is necessary to make material arrangements for his everyday care, supervision and education, including ongoing specialist and non-specialist treatment.", "18. On 10 December 1998 the applicants sent a claim to AP-HP seeking compensation for the damage suffered as a result of R.’s disability.", "19. In a letter dated 8 February 1999 AP-HP replied that it “[did] not intend to deny liability in this case” but invited the applicants to “submit an application to the Paris Administrative Court which, in its wisdom, will assess the damage for which compensation should be paid”.", "20. On 29 March 1999 the applicants submitted to the Paris Administrative Court a statement of their claim against AP-HP, requesting an assessment of the damage suffered.", "21. At the same time the applicants submitted to the urgent applications judge at the same court a request for the appointment of an expert and an interim award.", "22. In a decision of 10 May 1999 the urgent applications judge of the Paris Administrative Court made a first interim award of FRF 250,000 (EUR 38,112.25) and appointed an expert. He made the following points, among other observations:\n“[AP-HP] does not deny liability for the failure to diagnose the chromosomal anomaly which the boy R. is suffering from; ... having regard to the non-pecuniary damage, the disruption in the conditions of their lives and the special burdens arising for Mr and Mrs Draon from their child’s infirmity, AP-HP’s liability towards them in the sum of 250,000 francs may be considered, at the current stage of the investigation, not seriously open to challenge”.", "23. The expert filed his report on 16 July 1999 and confirmed the seriousness of R.’s state of health.", "24. On 14 December 1999, in a supplementary memorial on the merits, the applicants requested the Administrative Court to assess the amount of the compensation which AP-HP should be required to pay.", "25. AP-HP’s memorial in reply was registered on 19 July 2000. The applicants then filed a rejoinder and further documents concerning the modifications to their home and the equipment rendered necessary by R.’s state of health.", "26. In addition, the applicants again asked the urgent applications judge to make an interim award. In a decision of 11 August 2001 the urgent applications judge of the Paris Administrative Court made an additional interim award of FRF 750,000 (EUR 114,336.76) to the applicants “in view of the severity of the disorders from which the boy R. continues to suffer and the high costs of bringing him up and caring for him since 1996”.", "27. After being prompted several times, verbally and in writing, by the applicants, the Paris Administrative Court informed them that the case had been set down for hearing on 19 March 2002.", "28. On 5 March 2002 Law no. 2002-303 of 4 March 2002 was published in the Official Gazette of the French Republic. Section 1 of that Law, being applicable to pending proceedings, affected those brought by the applicants.", "29. In a letter of 15 March 2002 the Paris Administrative Court informed the applicants that the hearing had been put back to a later date and that the case was likely to be decided on the basis of a rule over which the court did not have discretion, since it applied to their claim by virtue of section 1 of the Law of 4 March 2002.", "30. In a judgment of 3 September 2002 the Paris Administrative Court, acting on a proposal made by the Government Commissioner, deferred its decision and submitted to the Conseil d’Etat a request for an opinion on interpretation of the provisions of the Law of 4 March 2002 and their compatibility with international conventions.", "31. On 6 December 2002 the Conseil d’Etat gave an opinion in the context of the litigation in progress (avis contentieux) which is reproduced below (see paragraph 51).", "32. On the basis of that opinion, the Paris Administrative Court ruled on the merits of the case on 2 September 2003. It began with the following observations:\n“Liability\nThe provisions of section 1 of the Law of 4 March 2002, in the absence of provisions therein deferring their entry into force, are applicable under the conditions of ordinary law following publication of that Law in the Official Gazette of the French Republic. Since the rules the Law lays down were framed by Parliament on general-interest grounds relating to ethical considerations, the proper organisation of the health service and the equitable treatment of all disabled persons, they are not incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 of [the Convention], with those of Articles 5, 8, 13 and 14 of [the Convention] or with those of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 [to the Convention]. The general-interest grounds which Parliament took into consideration when framing the rules set out in the first three paragraphs of section 1 justify their application to situations which arose prior to the commencement of pending proceedings. It follows that those provisions are applicable to the present action, brought on 29 March 1999;\nThe administrative courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of legislation; [the applicants’] request that this court review the constitutionality of the Law of 4 March 2002 must therefore be refused;\nIt appears from the investigation that in the fifth month of Mrs Draon’s pregnancy, after an ultrasound scan had shown a manifest problem affecting the growth of the foetus, she and Mr Draon were advised to consider the option of an abortion if karyotype analysis after an amniocentesis revealed a chromosomal abnormality. Mr and Mrs Draon then decided to have that test performed at Saint-Antoine Hospital. They were informed by the hospital on 13 September 1996 that no anomaly of the foetus’s male chromosomal pattern had been detected. However, very soon after the baby’s birth on 10 December 1996 magnetic resonance imaging revealed a serious malformation of the brain due to a karyotypic anomaly;\nThe report of the expert appointed by the court states that this anomaly was entirely detectable; failure to detect it therefore constituted gross negligence on AP-HP’s part which deprived Mr and Mrs Draon of the possibility of seeking an abortion on therapeutic grounds and entitles them to compensation under section 1 of the Law of 4 March 2002”.", "33. The court then assessed the damage sustained by the applicants as follows:\n“... firstly, ... the amounts requested in respect of non-specialist care, the specific costs not borne by social security, the costs of building a house suited to the child’s needs with a number of modifications to the home and the purchase of a specially adapted vehicle relate to special burdens arising throughout the life of the child from his disability and cannot therefore be sums for which [AP-HP] is liable;\n... secondly, ... Mr and Mrs Draon are suffering non-pecuniary damage and major disruption in their lives, particularly their work, regard being had to the profound and lasting change to their lives brought about by the birth of a seriously disabled child; ... these two heads of damage must be assessed, in the circumstances of the case, at 180,000 euros;\n... lastly ..., although Mr and Mrs Draon submitted that they could no longer holiday in a property they had purchased in Spain, they are not deprived of the right to use that property; consequently their claim for compensation for loss of enjoyment of real property must be rejected;...”", "34. The court concluded by ordering AP-HP to pay the applicants the sum of EUR 180,000, less the amount of the interim awards, interest being payable on the resulting sum at the statutory rate from the date of receipt of the claim on 14 December 1998, the interest due being capitalised on 14 December 1999 and subsequently on each anniversary from that date onwards. AP-HP was also ordered to pay the applicants the sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of costs not included in the expenses and to bear the cost of the expert opinion ordered by the president of the court.", "35. On 3 September 2003 the applicants appealed against the judgment. Their appeal is currently pending before the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal." ]	[ 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Ivanec Zaprešički, Croatia.", "5. On 4 December 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking non-pecuniary damages for injuries he had suffered in a traffic accident.", "6. On 29 October 1997 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave judgment awarding part of the damages sought.", "7. On appeal, on 9 February 1999 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.", "8. In the resumed proceedings, the court held two hearings and gave another judgment on 18 March 2002. It again awarded part of the damages sought. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 July 2002.", "9. Meanwhile, on 5 July 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 7 November 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible, since the Municipal Court had given its judgment in the case.", "10. On the respondent’s appeal, on 17 December 2002 the Zagreb County Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.", "11. In the resumed proceedings, the court held two hearings and concluded the main hearing on 13 May 2004. However, since the presiding judge had been dismissed from office, the main hearing was reopened and, subsequently, a judgment given on 16 December 2004.", "12. The proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb County Court, following an appeal against the above judgment." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "11. The applicant was born in 1950.", "12. On 11 February 1980 the applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. His guilty plea was accepted on the basis of medical evidence that he was a man with a severe personality disorder to such a degree that he was amoral. He was sentenced to a term of discretionary life imprisonment.", "13. The applicant’s tariff (that part of the sentence relating to retribution and deterrence) expired on 25 June 1994. His continued detention was based on considerations of risk and dangerousness, the Parole Board considering that he continued to present a risk of serious harm to the public.", "14. The applicant, who is barred by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 from voting in parliamentary or local elections, issued proceedings in the High Court under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, seeking a declaration that this provision was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.", "15. The applicant’s application was heard by the Divisional Court on 21 and 22 March 2001, together with an application for judicial review by two other prisoners, Mr Pearson and Mr Feal-Martinez, who had applied for registration as electors and been refused by the Registration Officer and who also sought a declaration of incompatibility.", "16. In the Divisional Court judgment dated 4 April 2001, Lord Justice Kennedy noted that section 3 had a long history and cited the Secretary of State’s reasons, given in the proceedings, for maintaining the current policy:\n“By committing offences which by themselves or taken with any aggravating circumstances including the offender’s character and previous criminal record require a custodial sentence, such prisoners have forfeited the right to have a say in the way the country is governed for that period. There is more than one element to punishment than forcible detention. Removal from society means removal from the privileges of society, amongst which is the right to vote for one’s representative.”\nExamining the state of practice in other jurisdictions, he observed that in Europe only eight countries, including the United Kingdom, did not give convicted prisoners a vote, while twenty did not disenfranchise prisoners and eight imposed a more restricted disenfranchisement. Reference was made to the United States Supreme Court which had rejected a challenge to the Californian Constitution’s disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners (see Richardson v. Ramirez [1974] 418 United States: Supreme Court Reports 24). Some considerable attention was given to Canadian precedents, which were relied on by both parties, in particular that of the Canadian Supreme Court which, in Sauvé v. Canada (no. 1) ([1992] 2 Supreme Court Reports 438), struck down the disenfranchisement of all prisoners as too widely drawn and infringing the minimum impairment rule, and that of the Federal Court of Appeal which, in Sauvé (no. 2) ([2000] 2 Federal Court Reports 117), upheld the subsequent legislative provision restricting the ban to prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more in a correctional institution. While it was noted that the Canadian courts were applying a differently phrased provision in their Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Divisional Court commented that the judgment of Linden JA in the second case in the Federal Court of Appeal contained helpful observations, in particular as regards the danger of the courts usurping the role of Parliament. The cases before the European Commission of Human Rights and this Court were also reviewed, the Divisional Court noting that the Commission had been consistent in its approach in accepting restrictions on persons convicted and detained.\nLord Justice Kennedy concluded:\n“... I return to what was said by the European Court in paragraph 52 of its judgment in Mathieu-Mohin. Of course as far as an individual prisoner is concerned disenfranchisement does impair the very essence of his right to vote, but that is too simplistic an approach, because what Article 3 of the First Protocol is really concerned with is the wider question of universal franchise, and ‘the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’. If an individual is to be disenfranchised that must be in the pursuit of a legitimate aim. In the case of a convicted prisoner serving his sentence the aim may not be easy to articulate. Clearly there is an element of punishment, and also an element of electoral law. As the Home Secretary said, Parliament has taken the view that for the period during which they are in custody convicted prisoners have forfeited their right to have a say in the way the country is governed. The Working Group said that such prisoners had lost the moral authority to vote. Perhaps the best course is that suggested by Linden JA, namely to leave to philosophers the true nature of this disenfranchisement whilst recognising that the legislation does different things.\nThe European Court also requires that the means employed to restrict the implied Convention rights to vote are not disproportionate, and that is the point at which, as it seems to me, it is appropriate for this Court to defer to the legislature. It is easy to be critical of a law which operates against a wide spectrum (e.g. in relation to its effect on post-tariff discretionary life prisoners, and those detained under some provision of the Mental Health Act 1983), but, as is clear from the authorities, those States which disenfranchise following conviction do not all limit the period of disenfranchisement to the period in custody. Parliament in this country could have provided differently in order to meet the objectives which it discerned, and like McLachlin J in Canada, I would accept that the tailoring process seldom admits of perfection, so the courts must afford some leeway to the legislator. As [counsel for the Secretary of State] submits, there is a broad spectrum of approaches among democratic societies, and the United Kingdom falls into the middle of the spectrum. In course of time this position may move, either by way of further fine tuning, as was recently done in relation to remand prisoners and others, or more radically, but its position in the spectrum is plainly a matter for Parliament not for the courts. That applies even to the ‘hard cases’ of post-tariff discretionary life sentence prisoners ... They have all been convicted and if, for example, Parliament were to have said that all those sentenced to life imprisonment lose the franchise for life the apparent anomaly of their position would disappear. ...\nIf section 3(1) of the 1983 Act can meet the challenge of Article 3 [of the First Protocol] then Article 14 has nothing to offer, any more than Article 10.”", "17. The applicant’s claims were accordingly dismissed as were those of the other prisoners.", "18. On 2 May 2001 an application for permission to appeal was filed on behalf of Mr Pearson and Mr Feal-Martinez, together with a forty-three-page skeleton argument. On 15 May 2001 Lord Justice Buxton considered the application on the papers and refused permission on the ground that the appeal had no real prospect of success.", "19. On 19 May 2001 the applicant filed an application for permission to appeal. On 7 June 2001, his application was considered on the papers by Lord Justice Simon Brown who refused permission for the same reasons as Lord Justice Buxton in relation to the earlier applications. The applicant’s renewed application, together with the renewed applications of Mr Pearson and Mr Feal-Martinez, were refused on 18 June 2001, after oral argument, by Lord Justice Simon Brown.", "20. On 25 May 2004 the applicant was released from prison on licence." ]	[]
[ "12. The applicants were born in 1962 and 1965 respectively and live in Bouligny.", "13. In 1990 the applicants had their first child, A., who was born with type 1 infantile spinal amyotrophy, a genetic disorder causing atrophy of the muscles.", "14. In 1992 Mrs Maurice became pregnant again. A prenatal diagnosis conducted at Nancy University Hospital revealed that there was a risk of the unborn child’s being afflicted by the same genetic disorder. The applicants chose to terminate the pregnancy.", "15. In 1997 Mrs Maurice, who was pregnant for the third time, again requested a prenatal diagnosis. This was conducted at Briey General Hospital, which sent the sample to the molecular diagnosis laboratory of the Necker Children’s Hospital Group, run by Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (“AP-HP”). In June 1997, in the light of that laboratory’s diagnosis, Briey General Hospital assured the applicants that the unborn child was not suffering from infantile spinal amyotrophy and was “healthy”.", "16. C. was born on 25 September 1997. Less than two years after her birth it became apparent that she too suffered from infantile spinal amyotrophy. On 22 July 1999 a report by the head of the laboratory at the Necker Children’s Hospital in Paris revealed that the mistaken prenatal diagnosis was the result of transposing the results of the analyses relating to the applicants’ family and those of another family, caused by the switching of two bottles.", "17. According to medical reports, C. presents grave disorders and objective signs of functional deficiency – frequent falls from which she is unable to get up unassisted, unsteady walk, tiredness at any effort. She needs the assistance of another person (particularly at night in order to turn her over so as to prevent her from suffocating, since she is unable to turn over alone). She cannot sit on her own and moves around with an electric scooter. She has to receive treatment several times a week and cannot be admitted to school because the latter is not suitably equipped. Her family doctor has expressed the view that “one must have reservations until the time of puberty both about motor and respiratory functions and about possible orthopaedic deformations”. These facts gave rise to several sets of proceedings.", "18. On 13 November 2000 the applicants submitted a claim to AP-HP seeking compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of C.’s disability.", "19. They also submitted to the urgent applications judge at the Paris Administrative Court a request for an interim award and for an expert to be appointed. The latter was appointed by an order issued on 4 December 2000.", "20. In an order made on 26 April 2001, the urgent applications judge at the Paris Administrative Court dismissed the request for an interim award on the ground that, as the expert had not yet delivered his report, “AP-HP’s obligation to pay [could] not be regarded as indisputable”.", "21. The expert submitted his report on 11 June 2001, concluding that on the occasion of the prenatal diagnosis conducted at the AP-HP laboratory there had not been medical negligence, because “the techniques employed [had been] consistent with the known scientific facts”, but there had been “negligence in the organisation and functioning of the service causing the transposition of results between two families tested at the same time”.", "22. The applicants lodged a further application, asking for the hospital to be ordered to pay them an advance of 594,551 euros (EUR). In an order made on 19 December 2001, the urgent applications judge at the Paris Administrative Court ordered AP-HP to pay an advance of EUR 152,449. He observed in particular:\n“... it is apparent from the investigation that in May 1997, at Briey General Hospital, a sample of amniotic fluid was taken from [Mrs Maurice] ...; that the analysis of that amniotic fluid was carried out by Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris; that while the results given [to the applicants] indicated that the unborn child was not suffering from infantile spinal amyotrophy, they related to a sample taken from another family tested at the same time and did not mention that, the sample of amniotic fluid having been contaminated by the mother’s blood, they were attended by uncertainty; that [the applicants] are therefore entitled to argue that Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris was guilty of negligent acts or omissions; that those negligent acts wrongly led [the applicants] to the certainty that the child conceived was not suffering from infantile spinal amyotrophy and that [Mrs Maurice’s] pregnancy could be carried to term in the normal way; that these negligent acts must be regarded as the direct causes of the damage sustained by [the applicants] from the disorder from which C. suffers; and that, this being the case, the existence of the obligation claimed by [the applicants] is not seriously open to challenge.”", "23. AP-HP appealed. In its submissions it argued that, while the transposition of the analyses had indeed constituted negligence in the organisation and functioning of the public hospital service, the only result of that negligence had been to deprive the applicants of information apt to enlighten their decision to seek a termination of the pregnancy. On the basis of the above-mentioned expert report, AP-HP submitted that even if the samples had not been transposed, the results would have been uncertain, having regard to the presence of the mother’s blood in the sample taken. Consequently, the applicants would not in any case have had reliable information available to them.", "24. In a judgment of 13 June 2002, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal varied the order issued by the urgent applications judge, reducing from EUR 152,449 to EUR 15,245 the amount of the interim award to the applicants. In its judgment it observed:\n“Liability:\n... after the birth [of C.], as the child had been found to be suffering from [infantile spinal amyotrophy], it emerged that the reason incorrect information had been given to the parents was that the results of the analyses carried out on two patients had been switched. It is not contested that the results were switched by the staff of [AP-HP] ...The negligence thus committed, as a result of which [Mrs Maurice] had no reason to request an additional examination with a view to termination of the pregnancy on therapeutic grounds, must be regarded as the direct cause of the prejudice suffered by [the applicants].”\nThe court went on to say:\n“Entitlement to the interim award requested:\n... the infantile spinal amyotrophy from which the child C. suffers is not the direct consequence of the above-mentioned negligence ... Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions ... of paragraph I of section 1 of the Law of 4 March 2002 [on patients’ rights and the quality of the health service – “the Law of 4 March 2002”], [AP-HP] would only be required to compensate the damage sustained by [the applicants], to the exclusion of the ‘special burdens arising throughout the life of the child’ from the latter’s disability, compensation for disability being a matter for national solidarity according to those same provisions. That being so, [AP-HP]’s plea that, for assessment of [the applicants’] right to compensation, the above-mentioned provisions of the Law of 4 March 2002 should have been applied to the dispute constitutes a serious defence against the applicants’ claim at first instance, in the amount awarded by the court below. If the above-mentioned legislative provisions ... are held to be applicable in the main proceedings now pending in the Paris Administrative Court, the only obligation [on AP-HP] which could be regarded as not seriously open to challenge would be the obligation to compensate [the applicants] for their non-pecuniary damage, which should be fixed, in the circumstances of the case, at 15,245 euros. Consequently, the interim award [AP-HP] is required to pay should be reduced to that sum ...”", "25. The applicants and AP-HP appealed on points of law. The applicants submitted only one ground of appeal to the Conseil d’Etat. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they argued that the immediate applicability of the Law of 4 March 2002 to pending proceedings was contrary to the Convention.", "26. Having been seised in the context of a similar case (Draon, also submitted to the Court, application no. 1513/03), the Conseil d’Etat ruled, in an opinion delivered on 6 December 2002, that the Law of 4 March 2002 was indeed applicable to pending proceedings and was compatible with the provisions of the Convention (see paragraph 52 below).", "27. In a judgment of 19 February 2003 the Conseil d’Etat, ruling on the above-mentioned appeal on points of law, followed the line set out in that opinion, observing:\n“It is not seriously open to challenge that such facts constituting gross negligence [faute caractérisée] which deprived [the applicants] of the possibility of terminating the pregnancy on therapeutic grounds, confer entitlement to compensation pursuant to section 1 of the Law of 4 March 2002, which came into force after the ruling of the urgent applications judge at the Paris Administrative Court and is applicable to pending proceedings. It is appropriate, in the particular circumstances of the case, to set at 50,000 euros the amount of the interim award [AP-HP] is required to pay on account of the prejudice sustained by [the applicants] personally.”", "28. Having received no reply from AP-HP two months after submitting their claim on 13 November 2000, and the absence of any reply amounting to implicit rejection, the applicants brought proceedings in the Paris Administrative Court. In their application they requested that the implicit rejection be set aside and AP-HP ordered to pay them, in particular, the following amounts: 2,900,000 French francs (FRF) (EUR 442,102) for the construction of a house and the purchase of a vehicle and a wheelchair; FRF 500,000 (EUR 76,225) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and disruption to their lives; FRF 10,000,000 (EUR 1,524,490) for pecuniary damage; and FRF 30,000 (EUR 4,573) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by their eldest daughter.", "29. Following the opinion given by the Conseil d’Etat on 6 December 2002, the applicants submitted supplementary observations to the Administrative Court asking it not to consider itself bound by the Judicial Assembly’s opinion and to declare the Law of 4 March 2002 incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. AP-HP, for its part, again submitted that the prenatal diagnosis communicated to the applicants would have been uncertain even if the results had not been transposed.", "30. In a judgment of 25 November 2003, the Paris Administrative Court ordered AP-HP to pay the applicants a total of EUR 224,500 (EUR 220,000 on their own behalf and EUR 4,500 on behalf of their eldest daughter) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the disruption to their lives. It observed in particular:\n“LIABILITY:\n[The applicants] seek to establish [AP-HP’s] liability for the damage they suffered on account of the fact that their daughter C. was born with a disability not detected during pregnancy.\n...\nThe provisions of section 1 of the Law of 4 March 2002, in the absence of any provisions in the Law providing for deferred entry into force, are applicable under the conditions of ordinary law following publication of the Law in the Official Gazette of the French Republic. The rules which it lays down, as decided by the legislature on general-interest grounds relating to ethical considerations, the proper organisation of the health service and the equitable treatment of all disabled persons, are not incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention ..., with those of Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention or with those of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to [the] Convention. ... The general-interest ground which the legislature took into account when laying down the rules contained in the first three sub-paragraphs of paragraph I justifies their application to situations which arose prior to the commencement of pending proceedings. Having regard to the wording of the Law of 4 March 2002, neither the fact that the system of compensation has not yet entered into force nor the fact that the mistaken diagnosis is alleged to have resulted from negligence in the organisation and functioning of the service are such as to bar application of the above-mentioned provisions to the present proceedings brought on 16 March 2001.\nThe administrative courts do not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of statute law. The appellants cannot therefore validly assert that the above-mentioned Law of 4 March 2002 is unconstitutional.\n[The applicants], whose eldest daughter suffers from infantile spinal amyotrophy, and who decided in 1992 to terminate another pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis had revealed that the unborn child was afflicted by the same pathology, had a daughter named C. in 1997 who was discovered during 1999 to be likewise suffering from that disorder despite the fact that, in view of the results of the amniocentesis conducted on [Mrs Maurice], they had been told that the foetus was healthy. That information proved to have been incorrect because the results from two patients had been transposed. The investigation showed that the switch was imputable to [AP-HP], which runs the Necker Children’s Hospital on whose premises the sample had been analysed. The switching of the results constituted gross negligence [faute caractérisée] for the purposes of the Law of 4 March 2002. In order to absolve itself of liability, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris cannot effectively argue that, even in the absence of negligence, the diagnosis would not have been reliable because of the presence of the mother’s blood in the foetal sample, since in such circumstances it was incumbent on the practitioner responsible for the analysis to inform [the applicants] accordingly, so that they would then have been able to have a new sample taken. The gross negligence mentioned above deprived the applicants of the possibility of terminating the pregnancy on therapeutic grounds, for which there is no time-limit. Such negligence entitles them to compensation under the conditions laid down in section 1 of the Law of 4 March 2002 ...”", "31. As regards assessment of the damage suffered, the court ruled as follows:\n“... firstly, the amounts sought in respect of treatment, special education costs and the costs of building a new house and purchasing a vehicle and an electric wheelchair relate to special burdens arising throughout the life of the child from her disability and cannot therefore be sums for which [AP-HP] is liable, regard being had to the above-mentioned provisions of section 1 of the Law of 4 March 2002;\n... secondly, [the applicants] are suffering non-pecuniary damage and disruptions to their lives, particularly their work, of exceptional gravity, regard being had to the profound and lasting change in their lives resulting from the birth of a second severely disabled child. In the circumstances of the case, these two heads of damage must be assessed at 220,000 euros. Consequently, [AP-HP] is ordered to pay that sum to [the applicants], after deducting the interim award paid;\n... thirdly, the above-mentioned provisions of the Law of 4 March 2002 do not bar payment of compensation, under the rules of ordinary law, for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by A. Maurice on account of the fact that her sister was born with a disability. In the circumstances of the case, a fair assessment of that damage requires [AP-HP] to pay the sum of 4,500 euros to [the applicants] acting on behalf of their child;”", "32. On 19 January 2004 the applicants appealed against the above judgment. The appeal is at present pending before the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal.", "33. In a complaint submitted to the Prime Minister on 24 February 2003, the applicants requested payment of compensation in the sum of EUR 1,970,593.33 based on the State’s liability for damage inflicted by reason of the Law of 4 March 2002.", "34. On expiry of the two-month time-limit following the lodging of their complaint, the applicants referred it to the Paris Administrative Court, requesting it to set aside the Prime Minister’s implicit decision to reject it and to order the State to compensate them for the damage they considered they had suffered.", "35. In a judgment of 25 November 2003, the Paris Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. It observed in particular:\n“It is clear from the drafting history of the Law of 4 March 2002 that this provision is based, firstly, on the desire of the legislature not to require health-care professionals or establishments to pay compensation for the burdens occasioned by a disability not detected during pregnancy, and, secondly, on a fundamental requirement: the rejection of any discrimination between disabled persons whose disability would be compensated for in accordance with the principles of liability and those whose disability would be covered by national solidarity, their mother having refused an abortion or the disability being undetectable at the time of the prenatal diagnosis.\nThis desire on the part of the legislature to eliminate any discrimination between disabled persons is a bar to the establishment [by the applicants] of the State’s liability by reason of the immediate application to pending proceedings of the Law of 4 March 2002, for the purpose of obtaining compensation for the special burdens arising from the disability, not detected during pregnancy, of their child C. Consequently, the [applicants’] submissions seeking the annulment of the contested decision and an order requiring the State to pay damages must be dismissed. \n...”", "36. The applicants appealed against this judgment. The appeal is now pending before the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal." ]	[ 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant is a Russian national, born in 1959 and living in the Perm Region.", "5. By a first instance judgment of 24 October 1997 the Perm Regional Court sentenced the applicant to nineteen years’ imprisonment for murder and rape. On 19 February 1998 the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court and came into force.", "6. On 20 January 1999 the Regional Court reversed the conviction by reference to newly discovered circumstances and remitted the case for a fresh investigation to a prosecutor. On 8 February 1999 the prosecutor took a decision fully to acquit the applicant.", "7. Thereafter the applicant brought court proceedings against the State, claiming damages for the wrongful conviction and unlawful detention for twenty months.", "8. On 20 July 2001 the Lysva Town Court of the Perm Region examined and granted his action. The court took account of the circumstances of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his conviction, including total length of his remand in custody which was of one year, eight months and twenty one days, and related after-effects, such as personal anxiety, anguish and feeling of isolation. The applicant was awarded RUR 70,000 (~2,740 euros) in damages to be paid by the Ministry of Finance.", "9. On 11 September 2001 the decision was upheld by the Perm Regional Court and came into force.", "10. On an unspecified date the applicant obtained an execution writ and forwarded it, together with supporting documents, to the bailiffs’ service. By two letters of 30 March and 21 May 2001 the bailiffs refused to institute enforcement proceedings and returned the writ and documents to the applicant. They stated, in particular, that under the legislation in force execution writs issued against the State should be submitted directly to the Ministry of Finance (see the relevant domestic law section below).", "11. The applicant followed the instruction and applied to the said Ministry. Upon receipt of the documents on 13 November 2001, the Ministry discovered that the address and details of the debtor in the writ had been mistaken. By a letter of 2 June 2002 the Ministry returned the documents to the applicant.", "12. Having obtained an amended writ from the court, on 3 October 2002 the applicant re-submitted the documents. They reached the Ministry on 11 October 2002. By a letter of 4 June 2003 the Ministry informed the applicant that the new writ was invalid in that it did not contain a submission period and again returned him the documents.", "13. On 20 June 2003 the applicant sent off the documents and 15 October 2003 the Ministry of Finance transferred him the money due pursuant to the decisions of 20 July and 11 September 2001." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "7. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zenzeli village, the Limanskiy District of the Astrakhan Region.", "8. In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. In 1996 and 1997 the applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between the applicant’s poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. The applicant was awarded compensation, to be paid monthly.", "9. In 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Welfare Office of the Limanskiy District of the Astrakhan Region (Отдел социальной защиты населения Лиманского района Астраханской области - “the defendant”) for an increase in the compensation, for backdating the increase and recovering of the unpaid amount. The applicant considered that the amount of compensation had been determined incorrectly.", "10. On 3 November 1999 the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region established, upholding the applicant’s claim, that the applicant was entitled to a monthly compensation of 5,045.73 roubles (RUR). The court established that the debt accrued as a result of previous underpayment was RUR 108,892.07. It also awarded the applicant RUR 60,000.00 as a penalty payment.", "11. By a decision of 14 December 1999 the Astrakhan Regional Court, acting on appeal, upheld the judgment as to the amount of the monthly payment and the principal debt, but reversed the penalty award. The judgment entered into force and enforcement proceedings were instituted. Both parties lodged requests for supervisory review of the courts’ decisions.", "12. On 17 March 2000 the Astrakhan Regional Court stayed the enforcement proceedings, pending the consideration of the defendant’s request for supervisory review.", "13. The defendant’s request for supervisory review was refused by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 13 April 2000.", "14. On 22 May 2000 the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region resumed the enforcement proceedings.", "15. By a decision of 15 August 2000 the President of the Astrakhan Regional Court refused the applicant’s request for supervisory review.", "16. On 15 September 2000 the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region granted a request by the Astrakhan Regional Office for Welfare Payments (Астраханский областной центр по начислению и выплате пенсий и пособий) to suspend the enforcement proceedings. The enforcement was stayed until 1 December 2000 to allow the authorities to “decide how to finance the court awards involving the recalculation of compensation to the victims of the Chernobyl catastrophe”.", "17. On 17 October 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused the applicant’s request for supervisory review of the suspension order.", "18. On an unspecified date, following a request made by the Astrakhan Regional Office for Welfare Payments, the President of the Astrakhan Regional Court brought an extraordinary appeal against the judgments of 3 November 1999 and 14 December 1999.", "19. On 27 December 2000 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court examined the appeal and quashed both the judgment of the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region dated 3 November 1999 and the judgment of the Astrakhan Regional Court dated 14 December 1999. The Presidium decided that the subordinate courts had wrongly determined the amount of monthly compensation. In particular, they had based all the calculations on the applicant’s salary as of October 1986. The Presidium held that the calculations should have been based on the applicant’s average earnings over the 12 months prior to the date on which the medical examination had established his disability. The case was remitted to the same District Court for a fresh examination.", "20. On 27 February 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in response to the applicant’s complaint, refused to conduct a supervisory review of the decision of 27 December 2000.", "21. By a judgment of 23 April 2001 the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region, acting as a first instance court, awarded the applicant the monthly payment of RUR 3,336.99 and established that the debt accrued was RUR 114,466.01. No penalty was awarded.", "22. On 24 July 2001 the Astrakhan Regional Court acting as an appeal instance reversed the judgment of the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region of 23 April 2001. It pointed out that the District Court had applied the calculation mode incorrectly and that the amounts due had to be recalculated. The case was remitted to the same District Court for a new decision.", "23. On 23 September 2002 the applicant filed a complaint with the Astrakhan Regional Court concerning the length of proceedings. He complained in particular that no decision had been taken in his case since 24 July 2001.", "24. In reply dated 27 September 2002, the applicant was informed that on 22 November 2001, on his request, the proceedings had been stayed pending the Constitutional Court’s decision in a similar case. He was informed that the proceedings had been resumed after the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 19 June 2002, and that a hearing had been fixed for 7 October 2002. He was also informed that the hearings had not been fixed until 2 September 2002 on the applicant’s request due to his counsel’s absence.", "25. On 4 November 2002 the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region decided that the compensation payable to the applicant by the welfare authorities was RUR 45,640.94. The applicant was also awarded legal costs of RUR 1,300 and non-pecuniary damages of RUR 5,000.", "26. The applicant appealed against this decision. He challenged the principal amount, the amount of non-pecuniary damages and the refusal of the penalty.", "27. By an appeal decision of 14 January 2003 the Astrakhan Regional Court reversed the first instance judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination by the same court.", "28. On 3 March 2003 the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region awarded the applicant RUR 235,210.32 of the principal debt, future monthly payments of RUR 4,727.96 and the legal costs of RUR 500.", "29. Both parties appealed against this judgment.", "30. On 29 April 2003 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment.", "31. On 5 August 2003 the awarded sums were transferred to the applicant’s bank account." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "10. The applicants were born in 1966, 1973 and 1971 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.", "11. The first and the third applicant are lawyers. The first and the second applicants were members of the Human Rights Association and the third applicant was the president of the HADEP Diyarbakır provincial headquarters at the time of the events.", "12. Following information received by the gendarmes that there was a meeting related to the PKK in the provincial headquarters of the HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi-People’s Democracy Party) and the Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights Association, the police officers at the Diyarbakır Security Directorate, after receiving authorisation from the Diyarbakır Governor’s Office and a search warrant from the judge at the State Security Court upon the request of the public prosecutor at that Court on 27 February 1995, conducted a search on the premises and arrested the applicants together with eleven other persons.", "13. On 27 February 1995 the applicants were handed over to the gendarmes at the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarmerie Command.", "14. According to the report drafted by the gendarmerie on 28 February 1995, at the HADEP headquarters, the police seized eight ERNK (National Liberation Front of Kurdistan) and PKK flags, a PKK emblem, sixty-five books and nine VHS videotapes about the PKK, seven audio tapes and documents addressed to the Secretary General of the European Parliament. They also found a pistol on one of the suspects.", "15. On 9 March 1995 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor and the State Security Court. The latter ordered their remand in custody.", "16. On 22 March 1995 the public prosecutor at the State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter accusing the applicants and the other suspects of having made propaganda on behalf of the PKK. He requested that the applicants and other detainees be convicted and sentenced for membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.", "17. On 1 May 1995 the State Security Court, taking into account the charges and the evidence against the applicants, ordered their release pending trial.", "18. On 8 April 1996 the State Security Court acquitted the applicants of all charges. It held that the materials found in the search could have been placed there by anyone and that apart from their statements in custody, which the applicants claimed to have given under duress, there was no evidence to convict them.", "19. On 16 April 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the aforementioned judgment.", "20. On 26 November 1997 the first applicant filed a petition with the Diyarbakır Assize Court under Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained. On 30 December 1997 the Diyarbakır Assize Court awarded the applicant an amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage to compensate the periods he spent in detention. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 29 September 1998." ]	[ 2 ]
[ "4. The applicant company is a joint stock company with its seat in Pakrac, Croatia.", "5. On 21 and 23 August 1991 the Croatian police requisitioned several vehicles belonging to the applicant company.", "6. In March 1995 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia. It based its claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.", "7. On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all proceedings for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.", "8. On 21 January 2000 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.", "9. On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).", "10.The proceedings resumed on 5 November 2003 and are still pending." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "10. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Diyarbakır.", "11. The facts surrounding the disappearance of İhsan Haran are disputed between the parties. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (see paragraphs 13-22). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (see paragraphs 23‑26).", "12. A summary of the relevant documents submitted by the parties have been set out separately in Sections D (see paragraphs 27-29) and E (see paragraphs 30-53) respectively. In summarizing the documents submitted by the parties, the Court has used the names of persons as cited in these documents. They do not necessarily reflect the correct spelling of the names of these persons.", "13. On an unspecified date one of the applicant’s brothers and a paternal cousin joined the PKK. At that time the applicant and İhsan Haran approached the Lice public prosecutor’s office and told the prosecutor that they were not in the least responsible for anything the brother and the cousin did and that the brother and the cousin had become involved in the PKK without the knowledge of the applicant or İhsan Haran. The public prosecutor said that he did not intend to open any kind of case against the applicant or İhsan Haran because of these events. In any event, İhsan Haran would hide in the forest when soldiers would come to the Arıklı village where they were residing.", "14. On 12 May 1994 the applicant and her husband together with their children moved from their village to Diyarbakır after their village was destroyed by the security forces. They did not consider it appropriate to give their new address to the authorities.", "15. On 24 December 1994 the applicant’s husband İhsan Haran did not return from the construction site of the Diyarbakır underground market where he had been working for the previous eight days. The applicant and other family members did not find this unusual because if there was extra work he would remain at work and not return home.", "16. On 27 December 1994 Mr Fahri Hazar, a co-villager, came to the applicant’s house and told her that on the morning of 24 December 1994 an identity check had been carried out by uniformed police officers at the construction site where İhsan Haran had been working and that while they were checking İhsan Haran’s identity papers, they started arguing amongst themselves. This argument lasted for some ten minutes and then the police officers took İhsan Haran away.", "17. On 30 December 1994 Mr Fahri Hazar was arrested and taken into police custody.", "18. After learning that her husband was arrested by the police officers, the applicant tried to file a petition with the public prosecutor’s office at the State Security Court in order to learn of his whereabouts. However, she was prevented from submitting her petition by the police officers standing in front of the State Security Court. She and other family members tried to see the public prosecutor for about a month without success.", "19. The applicant then started visiting several prisons in order to find out whether anyone had seen her husband. She met one person, whom requested from the applicant not to be named, who was placed in the Dormitory 31 at the Diyarbakır E-type prison and who told her that he had seen İhsan Haran in custody.", "20. On 1 February 1995 İhsan Haran’s brothers were taken into custody. In a statement dated 7 September 2004 given to their own legal representative, they said that while they were held in police custody they were threatened by the police officers that they would also be killed like their brother İhsan Haran (see paragraph 27 below).", "21. In 1997 the applicant’s sister-in-law was harassed by the police officers.", "22. On 15 December 1998 the applicant was approached by a man who claimed to be a policeman. He told her to get into a nearby car. She refused. He knew information about her family and offered her financial support in return for information. On 21 December 1998 the applicant told her lawyer that she had been refused a new identity card and that she had often been forced to change her home because of harassment by the security forces, including raids on her homes.", "23. Following the communication of the application by the European Commission on Human Rights on 26 February 1996 to the Government, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into the applicant’s allegations.", "24. On 21 January 1998 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor held that there was no need for a further investigation as there was no evidence showing that İhsan Haran had disappeared in police custody (see paragraph 36 below). He observed that since 1994 there was no record of any complaint made to the offices of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and of the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and of the Lice public prosecutor. He noted that no record had been found that İhsan Haran had been taken into custody by the Diyarbakır Security Directorate, Anti-terror branch, and the Provincial Gendarmerie Commander. It further observed that İhsan Haran was being searched for by the Diyarbakır Anti-terror branch. The applicant did not object to this decision.", "25. The investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of İhsan Haran still continues without success (see paragraphs 38-47 below).", "26. On 12 April 2004 the General Security Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs informed the Ministry of Justice that İhsan Haran was sought for his involvement in an illegal organisation following testimonies of certain suspects. In the same letter, the Ministry of Justice was informed that Nesibe Haran and İhsan Haran were not married (see paragraph 50 below).", "27. In their statements, Seyithan Haran and Abdullah Haran submitted that they had been arrested in Diyarbakır on 1 February 1995 by police officers. They averred that they had been subjected to ill‑treatment while they were held in police custody and that they had been told that they would undergo the same treatment as their brother İhsan. They submitted that they were also told that if they did not confess their crimes they would be eliminated and face the same fate as their brother İhsan.", "28. The extracts of the relevant part of the report is as follows:\n“Azad code name İhsan Haran was from Lice. He was either a militant or militia. He was taken outside town, interrogated and executed. Some information on his case: He was detained on 28 December 1994 on his way to his shop. His wife Nesime Haran stated that she had approached the State Security Court repeatedly, but had not received a response (Azadi, 12 February 1995). Mehmet Haran stated that (...) his nephew İhsan Haran had ‘disappeared’ (Evrensel, 26 December 1995). After the news in the press, Nesibe Baran stated: “The first time my husband was taken from the village to Hazro was in 1993. He stayed in custody for thirteen days. Later on we moved to Diyarbakır. Four months later plain clothes people kidnapped him. Over five months I constantly requested information from the prosecutor, but he did not accept that my husband had been detained. One day, on my way home, a person stopped me and wanted to talk. When I disagreed, he said that he was a police officer. He told me that my husband had been killed; he did not know the place but who did it. He asked me question about many people and I said that I did not know them. He wanted me to work for them, in a way to be their agent. I complained to the HRA and they did not disturb me anymore.”", "29. On 4 May 2004 Mr Abdulkadir Aygan, an ex-PKK and alleged ex‑JITEM (Intelligence branch of the Gendarmerie) member, gave an interview on ROJ TV where he claimed that JITEM conducted extra‑judicial killings of prominent Kurdish intellectuals. In the last part of the programme he gave a list of names of those others who were also allegedly killed by JITEM. İhsan Haran’s name was also mentioned by Mr Abdulkadir Aygan who stated without giving any details that he was interrogated and killed by the JITEM. The extracts of the relevant part of the video-tape is as follows:\n“Azad code name İhsan Haran was from Lice. He was either a militant or militia. He was taken outside the town, interrogated and executed.\"", "30. The custody reports of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate for the period between 22 January 1994 and 31 December 1995 do not contain the name of İhsan Haran.", "31. On 20 February 1995 Abdullah Haran was taken into custody. The extract of the relevant part of his statement is as follows:\n“Abdullah Haran (forged identity papers in the name of Mehmet Sedat Gökmen): We are nine siblings, my father works as a guardian in construction sites, my mother is a cleaner, my siblings are as follows; İhsan Haran: born in 1968. He is involved in PKK activities in rural areas since 1993. His code name is Azat (K). He is still active in the Lice region.”", "32. On 20 February 1995 Seyithan Haran was taken into custody. The extract of the relevant part of his statement is as follows:\n“Seyithan Haran (code names Behzan, forged identify papers in the name of Refik Manay): We are nine siblings, my father works as a guardian in construction sites, my mother is a house wife, my siblings are as follows; İhsan Haran: born in 1968. In 1993 he joined PKK’s rural branch. He is still active in the rural areas. His code name is Azat (K).” 3. Letter from General Directorate of Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated 22 May 1996", "33. The General Directorate of Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that an investigation had been conducted into the applicant’s allegations before the European Commission of Human Rights. They found no record that İhsan Haran had been taken into custody between 24 December 1994 and 1 February 1995. They further informed that İhsan Haran did not figure in any of the archives.", "34. According to the birth certificate of the applicant, she is single and her maiden surname is Haran. She has eleven siblings and three children who were registered with the birth registry on 2 August 1996 pursuant to Article 290 of the Civil Code. The name of the father of her children is stated to be İhsan.", "35. According to the birth certificate of İhsan Haran, he is single and has eight siblings.", "36. On 21 January 1998 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor held that there was no need for further investigation on account of lack of evidence. He observed that since 1994 there was no record of any complaint made to the offices of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and to the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and to the Lice public prosecutor. He noted that no record had been found that İhsan Haran had been taken into custody by the Diyarbakır Security Directorate, Diyarbakır Anti-terror branch, and the Provincial Gendarmerie Commander. It further observed that İhsan Haran was sought for by the Diyarbakır Anti-terror branch. 6. Letter from the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office, dated 3 April 2000", "37. The public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court informed the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office that İhsan Haran was being searched on suspicion of membership in an illegal organisation, namely the PKK, following the statements of Mr N.Z. before the State Security Court. He submitted that there was no information or documents indicating that İhsan Haran had disappeared or that he had been taken into custody.", "38. On 16 October 2000 the public prosecutor’s office requested from the Diyarbakır Municipality to provide them with the names of the companies involved in the construction of the Diyarbakır underground market in 1994. On 30 October 2000 the Diyarbakır Municipality sent the requested information.", "39. On 27 October 2000 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor informed the Diyarbakır principal public prosecutor’s office that the investigation into the disappearance of İhsan Haran was continuing.", "40. On 23 March 2000 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate submitted its custody records pertaining to the years 1994-1995.", "41. On 29 February 2000 the Diyarbakır principal public prosecutor’s office stated that Nesime Haran had lodged an application with the European Commission on Human Rights claiming that her husband had disappeared in police custody and that there had been two eye-witnesses and that she had been prevented by the police to file a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office. Accordingly, it ordered the Lice principal public prosecutor’s office to conduct the following investigations:\n(a) To obtain a statement of Nesime Haran in respect of her complaint pertaining to the disappearance of her husband;\n(b) To request the applicant to provide the names of eye-witnesses and to determine the identity and open addresses of the witnesses;\n(c) To obtain a statement of Nesime Haran in respect of her complaint that the police had prevented her from filing a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office;\n(d) To request the applicant to provide the names of potential eye‑witnesses to the above-mentioned event;\n(e) To request the applicant to clarify to where she had tried to file a complaint and was prevented from doing so.", "42. On 21 December 2001 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office requested from the Lice Population Directorate the birth records of Nesibe Haran.", "43. On 15 May 2001 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office requested the Lice public prosecutor’s office to locate the applicant in order to obtain statements from the latter in respect of the disappearance of her husband. He further requested an inquiry on whether her new address was registered with the authorities in the event that the applicant would not be found in her village. Finally, it requested the Lice public prosecutor’s office to locate the addresses of the close relatives of the applicant.", "44. On 21 November 2002 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to provide the names of workers employed by three construction companies between 1994 and 1995.", "45. On 29 January 2003 and 25 September 2003 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office informed the Diyarbakır principal public prosecutor’s office that the investigation into the disappearance of İhsan Haran was continuing.", "46. On 1 December 2003 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor informed the Diyarbakır principal public prosecutor’s office that they were still awaiting a response from the Diyarbakır Traffic Registry Office, State Hospital, Diyarbakır Land Registry, Diyarbakır Birth Registry, Lice Birth Registry and Lice Land Registry on whether İhsan Haran had accomplished any acts since 1 December 1994.", "47. On 3 January 2004 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor informed the Diyarbakır principal public prosecutor’s office that they were still awaiting a response from the Lice Land Registry on whether İhsan Haran had accomplished any administrative acts since 1 February 1994 before various administrative authorities.", "48. The public prosecutor requested the Lice Gendarmerie Command to bring, as soon as possible, the complainant Nesime Haran before the public prosecutor’s office in order to obtain her testimony. Her open address was stated as: Arıklı village.", "49. Both witnesses affirmed that they had been held in custody between 15 December 1994 and 2 January 1995 in the anti-terror branch of the Security Directorate and that they had not seen or known of a person named İhsan Baran during that time.", "50. The General Security Directorate informed the Ministry of Justice that İhsan Haran’s name was mentioned in the statements of seventeen suspects arrested in the course of an operation conducted against the PKK/KONTRA-GEL and that therefore, he was currently being sought. They further submitted that, despite the allegations that İhsan Haran had been seen in custody, his brothers in their statements of 20 February 1995 before the Diyarbakır Security Directorate had submitted that their brother had joined the PKK in 1993 and that he was continuing his activities under the code name of Azad. They finally stated that according to the Birth Records of the Diyarbakır Population Office, İhsan Haran and Nesime Haran were not married. 11. Minutes of the hearings held between 20 March 1995 and 16 June 1996 before the Diyarbakır State Security Court in the criminal proceedings against İhsan Haran’s brothers", "51. Before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, Seyithan Haran claimed to have given his statements in police custody under duress and Abdullah Haran claimed that the statement which was read out to him before the court was not the statement that he had given in police custody.", "52. Ihsan Haran’s brothers were tried before the Diyarbakır State Security Court together with eight other co-accused, including a certain Fahri Hazar from Arıklı village. Seyithan Haran and Abdullah Haran were convicted on 16 June 1996 and sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.", "53. İhsan Haran’s name does not figure in the list of workers who worked for RE-HA Construction Company." ]	[ 0 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Zagreb.", "5. In 1982 the applicant, together with her relative A.M, purchased a flat in Crikvenica. The purchase agreement did not contain any provision on the shares of ownership of the flat.", "6. On 23 May 1989 A.M. instituted civil proceedings before the Crikvenica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Crikvenici) seeking declaration of her ownership of two-thirds of the flat. On 29 October 1989 the applicant filed a counterclaim, seeking declaration that she was the owner of seven-eighths of the flat.", "7. Following two remittals, on 18 June 1996 the Crikvenica Municipal Court ruled that A.M. was the owner of three-fifths and the applicant of two-fifths of the flat.", "8. On appeal, on 8 October 1997 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) upheld the first-instance judgment.", "9. On 20 October 1998 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (revizija) against the County Court’s judgment. On 4 April 2002 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed her appeal as ill-founded. The decision was served on the applicant on 13 September 2002." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicants were born in 1958, 1978 and 1980, respectively, and live in Rijeka.", "5. On 7 August 1995 the first applicant’s husband - the second and third applicant’s father - was killed by an unidentified member of the Croatian Army, during a military operation.", "6. On 4 June 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) seeking damages from the State. They based their claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.", "7. On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all proceedings for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.", "8. On 14 November 2001 the Rijeka Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation. The applicants’ appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) on 25 September 2002.", "9. On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).", "10. On 13 October 2004 the applicants’ proceedings resumed." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "8. The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Lilienthal in Germany.", "9. Since 1973 the applicant, her sister M. and their mother S. were the joint owners of a plot of land situated in Bremerhaven. The lease of the plot was managed by a partnership consisting of the applicant, M., S. and a limited company (S company). Partners of the S company were also the applicant, M. and S. Over the years, serious arguments arose between the applicant on one side and her mother and sister on the other side about questions of the proper administration of the partnership, in particular in respect of taxation matters.", "10. By letter dated 28 March 1986, the applicant filed an action with the Bremen Regional Court (Landgericht Bremen), sitting as a court competent in commercial matters (Kammer für Handelssachen), against S., M. and the S company (hereafter “the defendants”). According to the Government’s submissions – which are contested by the applicant – the Regional Court received the action on 11 June 1986. The applicant asked the Regional Court to prohibit the defendants from excluding her from the management of the business. She also demanded that the defendants surrender all annual accounts since 1973 and that they distribute the net profits accordingly. The applicant alleged that the defendants had failed to consult her about the management. She further complained about mistakes in the management, in particular about the fact that the defendants insisted on paying business taxes without being obliged to do so.", "11. On 21 July 1986 the applicant’s counsel stated that the applicant was willing to reach a friendly settlement.", "12. On 30 September 1986, during a first oral hearing, the parties declared that they were willing to reach an understanding and only thereafter hold another hearing.", "13. On 4 November 1986 the applicant’s counsel informed the Regional Court that negotiations on a settlement had not taken place.", "14. On 20 March 1987, during a further hearing, the Regional Court’s continuing efforts to induce the parties to agree on a friendly settlement failed. However, S. agreed to submit all documents on the annual accounts since 1973 to the applicant’s counsel for inspection.", "15. On 27 July 1987 the applicant’s counsel informed the Regional Court that S. had failed to comply.", "16. On 11 August 1987 the Regional Court scheduled an oral hearing which was subsequently postponed on the applicant’s request.", "17. On 6 November 1987 S. agreed to submit the relevant documents on the annual accounts since 1975 to the applicant’s counsel.", "18. On 30 December 1987 the Regional Court instructed the defendants to submit the partnership agreements and the annual accounts since 1973 and to disclose the use of the reported profits. It further instructed the applicant to quantify her claims.", "19. In December 1987 and January and April 1988 the Regional Court called for the case-file of a separate law suit which the applicant conducted against the partnership’s former tax consultant. On 4 February 1988 – according to the Government’s submissions, which are contested by the applicant – the defendants submitted the annual balances and reported on the use of the profits.", "20. On 15 June 1988 the presiding judge noted that “particularly on emotional grounds, the sensible pursuit of progress in this case” was not possible before a final decision had been reached in the proceedings against the tax consultant.", "21. On 24 July 1989 the applicant complied with the conditions imposed in the order of 30 December 1987. In September 1989 and January, March, April and May 1990 the Regional Court filed for further information on the proceedings against the tax consultant.", "22. On 4 September 1998 the Regional Court scheduled a further hearing for 20 October 1989. On 20 October 1989 that court decided to schedule a further hearing only after the tax authority’s decisions on the partnership’s tax liability for the years 1984 to 1986 had become final. On 23 November 1989 the applicant’s counsel informed the court that the tax decisions had become final. On 19 March, 13 June and 6 August 1990 the applicant’s counsel requested the Regional Court to schedule a new oral hearing. On 8 August 1990 the Regional Court scheduled an oral hearing for 3 September 1990, noting that the delay was owed to the chamber’s excessive workload during the previous six months.", "23. On 12 October 1990, following the oral hearing, the Regional Court delivered a partial decision ordering the defendants to pay DEM 29,657.58 to the applicant and to grant her a restricted power over the commercial partnership’s bank accounts.", "24. In a letter directed to the presiding judge of the Court of Appeal, the presiding judge of the Regional Court expressed his regrets of the fact that his attempts to reconcile the parties had failed.\n(b) The appeal proceedings against the partial decision of 12 October 1990 before the Hanseatic Court of Appeal", "25. On 19 November 1990 the defendants lodged an appeal against the Regional Court’s partial decision.", "26. On 11 April 1991 the Hanseatic Court of Appeal (Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen), having received submissions from both parties, scheduled an oral hearing for 22 August 1991.", "27. On 27 May 1991 the applicant informed the Court of Appeal that she had changed counsel.", "28. On 6 June and 17 September 1991 the Court of Appeal postponed the hearing, once following the applicant’s request and a second time because of the rapporteur’s illness.", "29. On 5 December 1991 the Court of Appeal further postponed the hearing on the ground that the rapporteur had been seconded to the eastern part of Germany.", "30. On 26 March 1992, following an oral hearing on 5 March 1992, the Hanseatic Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court’s partial decision and rejected the applicant’s claims.\n(c) The continuation of the proceedings before the Bremen Regional Court", "31. On 23 June 1992 the Regional Court scheduled an oral hearing for 2 October 1992. On 28 September 1992 and 6 October 1992, following requests from the defendants, the Regional Court postponed the hearing.", "32. On 17 November 1992 the Regional Court, once again, tried to induce the parties to reach a friendly settlement. On 15 and 18 December 1992 the parties informed the Regional Court that no settlement had been reached.", "33. On 15 January 1993 the Regional Court ordered the preparation of an expert opinion as to whether the annual accounts for the years 1975 to 1991 of both the commercial partnership and the S company had been prepared in accordance with the rules on accounting and balances. It found that the annual balances did not form a sufficient basis to calculate the applicant’s possible net profit claims.", "34. On 23 March 1993, upon payment of the advance costs, the Regional Court sent the files to the Chamber of Tax Consultants for the nomination of a suitable expert.", "35. On 5 April 1993 the applicant’s counsel informed the Regional Court that he had relinquished his mandate.", "36. On 28 April 1993 the Chamber of Tax Consultants named an expert.", "37. On 29 April 1993 – according to the Government’s submissions – the presiding judge of the Regional Court orally informed the applicant that he would only commission the expert after she had nominated a new counsel.", "38. On 13 August 1993 the applicant informed the Regional Court that she had mandated new counsel.", "39. On 27 August 1993 the Regional Court ordered the parties to pay further advance costs.", "40. On 22 October 1993 the Bremen Regional Court appointed the certified accountant D. to prepare the expert opinion.", "41. On 19 September 1994, after having received the necessary documents towards the end of 1993, D. submitted his report.", "42. On 3 March 1995, following the submissions of both parties and requests filed by the defendants to postpone the hearing, the Regional Court held an oral hearing and asked D. to amend his report in view of supplementary documents to be submitted by the defendants.", "43. On 15 May 1995 the applicant lodged a criminal charge against the defendants for withholding documents, which led to a search of S.’s apartment.", "44. On 24 May 1995 – according to the Government’s submissions – the Public Prosecutor requested the Regional Court to transmit the case-file. On 28 August 1995 the presiding judge of the Regional Court informed the parties that he was prevented from pursuing proceedings as the Prosecutor’s Office had not yet returned the case-file.", "45. On 18 December 1995 the Regional Court asked D. to resume his work on the amendment of his expert report.", "46. On 8 January 1996 the applicant addressed a letter to the President of the Regional Court, referring to the excessive length of proceedings and requesting that her case be given priority.", "47. On 7 March 1996 the presiding judge of the Regional Court informed the parties that he was unable to proceed because the files had not yet returned from the President’s office. On 14 March 1996 the President informed the applicant that he could not find any delay in proceedings attributable to the court.", "48. On 22 March 1996 the expert informed the Regional Court that the defendants had not submitted all necessary documents.", "49. On 24 May 1996, during an oral hearing, the defendants stated that they would submit the requested documents at the beginning of June. The Regional Court scheduled a date to proclaim a decision for 30 August 1996.", "50. On 26 August 1996 the applicant requested the oral hearing to be reopened and announced new applications.", "51. On 30 August 1996 the Regional Court re-opened proceedings and scheduled a hearing for 13 September 1996. On 25 September 1996, following the defendant’s request of 9 September 1996, the Regional Court postponed the hearing to 15 November 1996.", "52. On 15 November 1996 the Regional Court suggested another friendly settlement and scheduled a final hearing for 29 November 1996.", "53. On 22 November 1996, following the defendant’s request, the Regional Court postponed the hearing to 13 December 1996. Following that hearing the Regional Court announced that it would issue a decision on 31 January 1997.", "54. On 19 December 1996 the Regional Court received D.’s amended expert opinion.", "55. On 31 January 1997 the Regional Court ordered the parties to file their comments on the report and scheduled to give a decision on 1 April 1997.", "56. On 1 April 1997 the Regional Court issued a judgment combined with a judgment on the basis of the cause of action (Grundurteil), concluding that the applicant had effectively revoked the managerial rights of the defendants, that the defendants – in collaboration with the applicant – were obliged to draw up the annual accounts from 1 January 1975 onwards and rejecting the majority of the applicant’s further claims. In his reasoning, the presiding judge noted that the parties conducted their arguments since more than ten years “with consistent stubbornness and with an uncompromising attitude” the like of which he – the presiding judge – had never before experienced in his professional career.\n(d) The appeal proceedings against the judgment of 1 April 1997 before the Hanseatic Court of Appeal", "57. On 5 and 7 May 1997 all parties lodged their appeals. On 18 August 1997, having received submissions from all parties, the Hanseatic Court of Appeal scheduled a hearing for 13 November 1997. On 25 September 1997, following a request by the applicant, the Court of Appeal postponed the hearing to 18 December 1997.", "58. On 18 December 1997 the Court of Appeal suggested that the parties should seek a separation. At the end of the hearing, following the request of all parties, the court decided that proceedings should only be continued on request of one of the parties.", "59. On 5 January 1998, following the defendants’ application in a separate proceeding, the Bremerhaven District Court (Amtsgericht) ordered that the piece of land administered by the commercial partnership be sold by compulsory auction with a view to partitioning the property concerned (Teilungsversteigerung).", "60. On 29 January 1998, following the applicant’s request to continue proceedings, the Court of Appeal scheduled an oral hearing for 23 April 1998 which was later postponed on the defendants’ request to 28 May 1998.", "61. On 28 May 1998 the Court of Appeal announced its intention to suspend proceedings until the termination of the auction proceedings, against which the applicant protested.", "62. On 9 July 1998 the Court of Appeal passed an order to suspend the proceedings until a final decision had been reached in the auction proceedings. The Court of Appeal found that the outcome of at least part of the lawsuit depended on the conclusion of these auction proceedings. On 25 February and 31 August 1999 and 7 July and 12 September 2000 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s requests to resume proceedings on the ground that the auction proceedings had not yet been terminated.", "63. On 18 August 2000 the applicant raised a constitutional complaint. She complained that despite the undue length of the proceedings, the Hanseatic Court of Appeal refused to resume them. She also gave a chronological account of the proceedings and maintained that their excessive length had violated her rights under the Basic Law.", "64. On 22 November 2000 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to entertain the applicant’s complaint.", "65. On 27 November 2001 the Hanseatic Court of Appeal, in separate proceedings, rejected the applicant’s final complaint against the compulsory sale of the plot of land. On this occasion, the Hanseatic Court of Appeal was sitting as the same chamber as in the above mentioned proceedings.", "66. On 2 November 2004 S. passed away.", "67. By an undated letter dispatched on 19 November 2004 the presiding judge of the Court of Appeal referred to this Court’s decision on the admissibility of the present complaint and asked the applicant if she wished to pursue the proceedings.", "68. By letter of 30 November 2004 the applicant insisted that the Court of Appeal was legally obliged to revoke its suspension order of 9 July 1998 before pursuing proceedings.", "69. On 14 January 2005 the Court of Appeal lifted its suspension order and scheduled an oral hearing for 14 April 2005.", "70. On 3 May 2005, following the oral hearing, the Court of Appeal suspended the proceedings against S. because of the latter’s death. At the same time, the Court of Appeal issued four pages of legal assessment of the case and invited the parties to submit any comments they would like to make within eight weeks. A new hearing would be scheduled after expiry of this time-limit. The proceedings are still pending before the Hanseatic Court of Appeal.\n(e) The sale of the property by auction proceedings", "71. On 17 July 1998, upon the applicant’s complaint, the Bremerhaven District Court revoked the auction order. On 29 September 1998 this decision was set aside by the Bremen Regional Court; a further appeal was dismissed on 25 November 1998 by the Hanseatic Court of Appeal.", "72. The applicant’s various further motions aimed at the prevention of the sale of the plot, including a further constitutional complaint, remained unsuccessful.", "73. On 9 July 2001 the Bremerhaven District Court ordered the auction of the plot of land. It was purchased by M. The applicant’s complaints remained unsuccessful (see paragraph 65 above)." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb.", "5. On 29 November 1991 the Croatian army requisitioned a vehicle belonging to the applicant. The vehicle was damaged beyond repair in a traffic accident on 16 May 1993.", "6. On 19 January 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia. He based his claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.", "7. On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all proceedings for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.", "8. On 3 July 2000 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.", "9. On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).", "10. On 18 December 2003 proceedings resumed." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sławno, Poland.", "5. On 5 August 1993 the Housing Co-operative “Wybrzeże” lodged a compensation claim with the Sławno District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) claiming the amount of 27,880,200 old Polish zlotys from the applicant for unpaid interest on a loan.", "6. On 29 October and 9 November 1993 the court held hearings. On 30 November 1993 the Sławno District Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed.", "7. On 18 May 1994 the Słupsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the contested judgment and referred the case to the first-instance court.", "8. On 22 November 1996 the District Court held a hearing.", "9. On 11 December 1996 the plaintiff increased the amount of the claim. Accordingly, the case had to be transmitted to the Słupsk Regional Court, which was now competent to examine it.", "10. The court held hearings on the following dates: 19 May 1997, 6 October 1997, 22 April 1998, 20 May 1998, 10 June 1998 and 14 September 1998.", "11. On 19 August 1997 an expert submitted his opinion to the court.", "12. On 23 September 1998 the Słupsk Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 17 February 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.", "13. On 23 February 1999 the applicant asked the Gdańsk Court of Appeal to be served with a copy of the judgment. On 28 July 1999 it was served on the applicant.", "14. On 30 August 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 8 February 2001 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, considering that the applicant had failed to satisfy the procedural requirements set out in Polish law." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "8. The applicant, Ms Julieta Saviţchi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Chişinău. She is a journalist.", "9. On 2 October 1999 the Russian language newspaper “The New Order” published an article entitled “Traffic Police – My Star” signed by the applicant. The article stated inter alia that:\n“...This is quite a banal story for us regular citizens, and a normal phenomenon for the traffic inspectors. In any event, it serves as a good example of the ‘star syndrome’ suffered by the traffic inspectors.\nA person was driving his Moskvitch on Stefan cel Mare Street. Let us call him ‘Victor’. When he approached the Stefan cel Mare and Tighina crossroads, the traffic lights turned red and, like any normal person, Victor pressed the brakes. But people who abide by the rules are not always lucky. A luxurious speeding Opel ran into the old Moskvitch. Both cars were damaged, but the Moskvitch was damaged more. Victor stayed at the place of the accident, as any man believing in the strictness of the law would do, awaiting the arrival of the police and their wise and fair verdict. The owner of the ‘Opel’ though, aware of his guilt, hit the gas and disappeared.\nBefore long a Sergeant of the traffic police arrived and began to take measurements and investigate, making notes in a note book. At the height of the investigation the owner of the Opel arrived, but without his car. He waited until the policeman finished his work, and then said that he would go to the Municipal Traffic Police Centre to solve the problem.\nAt the Municipal Traffic Police Centre the two car owners and the policeman were received by a person of a venerable age with the epaulets of a Sergeant-Major (later we found out that he worked in the emergency department). The owner of the Opel addressed him in a very friendly way, calling him ‘Jora’. The Sergeant-major Jora approached the young Sergeant, who investigated the accident, and asked him in a way more like an order than a question: ‘How many years have you been working for the Traffic Police?’ – Two years... ‘But I worked for twenty years; therefore you should listen to me. Don’t write anything, let the people come to an agreement themselves and the guilty one (i.e. the owner of the Opel) pay to the second one approximately 30 Moldovan Lei (MDL). In any event his car is a flea-pit, and there is no need to make a lot of fuss.’\nThe owner of the ‘flea-pit’, who cannot be considered a wealthy man, almost lost the power of speech when he heard that. How was it possible to offer him such a petty sum for his severely damaged car? Since the victim would not agree, Sergeant-Major Jora and the owner of the Opel increased somewhat the amount, bargaining for each leu. Afraid that he would not get anything, Victor agreed to the sum of MDL 75. He later had his car fixed by some acquaintances, who laughed at him for being fooled like a boy. Victor spent a little bit more than MDL 200 for the repair – a sum that might seem ridiculous to some traffic inspectors. For Victor though, this is really big money. But it is not the money, that he’s worried about, but the way he was treated at the Traffic Police Centre, in particular this Sergeant-Major Jora, who treated him as a man from the lowest strata, almost as a nonentity. After a few days Victor went to Jora and asked for his driver’s licence back. The Sergeant-Major promised to return the driver’s licence, but only on condition that Victor paid a fine of MDL 18. Victor was dumbfounded. – ‘Why should I pay a fine? What did I do?’ The Sergeant-Major, answered very furiously: ‘Once I say that you should pay, then you should pay, without asking any questions.’\nVictor, who was very upset about the absurdity of the situation, warned the policeman that he would complain to his superiors. The Sergeant-Major, understanding that there was no way for him to prevail, literally went ballistic. He threw the driver’s licence in Victor’s face, shouting like a madman.\n- ‘He would complain! Who are you? Take your documents and get out of here, and pray God not to come back to the Traffic Police, because otherwise you’ll get into big trouble.’\nThe man took his driver’s licence and left the Police Station, meditating on what Jora could possibly do to him if ever he came back...”", "10. On an unspecified date in 1999 a policeman named G.R. lodged a civil action for defamation against the applicant and the publishing office of the newspaper with the Centru District Court. Relying on Articles 7 and 7/1 of the Civil Code, the complainant alleged that the article contained statements which were defamatory of him.", "11. Between January and March 2000 several oral hearings were held and several witnesses were heard. The applicant and the newspaper stated that the facts presented in the article were a simple reproduction of the story told by Victor, the victim of the road accident. Victor gave evidence to that effect. They further stated that the information contained in the article was not of a defamatory nature and could not harm in any way the reputation of the complainant, particularly since it did not contain his full name, but only a diminutive of his first name.", "12. By its judgment of 14 March 2000, the Centru District Court found that the information contained in the article was defamatory of G.R. and did not correspond to reality. It argued that in the emergency department of the Municipal Traffic Police there was only one Sergeant-Major Jora, and that he was therefore easily identifiable. In particular, the court quoted the following extracts from the article as being defamatory:\n“...this sergeant-major Jora, who treated him as a man from the lowest strata, almost as a nonentity.”", "13. The court found that this statement conveyed the idea “that ‘Jora’ was a policeman who could not behave with other people, and who was not a very positive person”.\n“The sergeant-major, promised to return the driver’s licence, but only on condition that Victor paid a fine of MDL 18.”", "14. The court found that this statement did not correspond to reality since Victor forgot to take his driving licence. Moreover, Victor could not prove that he was requested to pay a fine.\n“He threw the driver’s licence in Victor’s face, shouting like a madman.”\n“Take your documents and get out of here, and pray God not to come back to the Traffic Police, because otherwise you’ll get into big trouble.”", "15. The court found that these statements were defamatory of G.R. since they characterised him as a brutal, menacing and vindictive person. Moreover, the applicant did not bring any evidence in support of these statements. The court did not make any note of Victor’s testimony in its judgment.", "16. The court ordered the applicant and the newspaper to pay the complainant non-pecuniary damages of MDL 180 (the equivalent of 14.4 euros (EUR) at the time) and MDL 1,800 (the equivalent of EUR 147 at the time) respectively. It also ordered them to publish a denial of the above statements.", "17. Only the newspaper appealed against this judgment. The applicant lodged a request submitting that she fully agreed with the appeal and that she subscribed to it.", "18. On 30 May 2000 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the applicant had not proved the truth of her statements.", "19. The newspaper lodged an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Regional Court. The applicant neither lodged an appeal in cassation nor subscribed to the one lodged by the newspaper.", "20. On 24 October 2000 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal in cassation and quashed the judgments of the Centru District Court and of the Chişinău Regional Court in respect of both the newspaper and the applicant. It issued a new judgment, in which it found in favour of G.R.. In its judgment the court found that only the following statements were defamatory and did not correspond to reality:\n“...this sergeant-major Jora, who treated him as a man from the lowest strata, almost as a nonentity.”\n“He threw the driver’s licence in Novac’s face, shouting like a madman.” (Бросил Новаку водительские права в лицо, крича как помешанный)", "21. It ordered the newspaper to publish a denial of the above statements within fifteen days. It ordered the applicant and the newspaper to pay the complainant non-pecuniary damages of MDL 180 and MDL 1,800 respectively. It also ordered both the applicant and the newspaper to pay the court fees of MDL 90." ]	[ 6 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava.", "5. On 29 March 1993 the applicant brought an action against the Bratislava II Housing Cooperative (Stavebné bytové družstvo), of which she had formerly been a member, in the Bratislava II District Court (at that time Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd). She challenged a decision of the defendant of 26 October 1992 concerning her entitlement to a new flat and the procedure applied by the defendant in dealing with her appeal against it.", "6. On 16 December 1993 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant provided further particulars of her action in that she was seeking a ruling declaring that she had the right to the new flat.", "7. On 13 January 1994 the District Court ruled that the applicant had a right to the new flat in question. The defendant challenged the judgment by an appeal (odvolanie).", "8. On 13 October 1994 the Bratislava Regional Court (at that time Mestský súd, at present Krajský súd) held a hearing of the appeal and invited the defendant to submit further evidence which the defendant did on 27 October 1994.", "9. On 26 January 1995, following another hearing of the appeal held on the same day, the Regional Court overturned the judgment of 13 January 1994 and dismissed the action.", "10. On 20 April 1995 the applicant challenged the judgment of 24 January 1995 by an appeal on points of law (dovolanie).", "11. On 21 November 1995 the applicant’s lawyer informed the District Court that he was no longer representing her. As legal representation in appeals on points of law was mandatory, the District Court invited the applicant to identify her new representative on 14 December 1995 and, in the absence of a reply, again on 26 March 1996. The applicant finally replied on 25 April 1996. The appeal on points of law was then submitted to the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) for a determination.", "12. On 4 October 1996 the Supreme Court returned the case‑file to the District Court without a decision, on the ground that the power of attorney for the applicant’s legal representation did not state expressly that it applied to proceedings on appeals on points of law as was required under the applicable procedural rules.", "13. On 11 December 1996 and repeatedly on 21 April 1997 the District Court requested that the applicant’s lawyer correct the power of attorney, which he did on 15 July 1997.", "14. On 28 October 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of 13 January 1994 and 26 January 1995, finding that the lower courts had determined the action in a manner in which it had never actually been formulated. As the action fell to be determined at first instance by the Regional Court, it was remitted to it.", "15. Between 28 March and 17 October 2000 the Regional Court held 6 hearings.", "16. On 23 October 2000, following another hearing held on the same day, the Regional Court dismissed the action. The applicant challenged the judgment by an appeal.", "17. On 19 December 2001, following a hearing of the appeal held on the same day, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 23 October 2000." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "9. The applicants, N.A., N.A., A.A., J.Ö. and H.H., were born in 1926, 1956, 1954, 1949 and 1950 respectively and live in Antalya.", "10. After surveys had been conducted by the Land Office between 1956 and 1958, a plot of land on the coast in the locality of Karasaz (village of Çikcilli, district of Alanya, parcel no. 84) was entered in the land register in the name of R.A.", "11. Following R.A.'s death, the applicants inherited the land and paid the appropriate taxes and duties on it.", "12. On 25 June 1986 the applicants obtained a tourist investment certificate from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism with a view to building a hotel on the land.", "13. On 9 July 1986 the State Planning Organisation awarded the applicants an investment incentive certificate, again for the purpose of building a hotel. Paragraph X of the certificate stated that the applicants had to obtain a tourism licence once the investment had been made.", "14. On 28 October 1986, after the applicants had started building the hotel, the Treasury instituted proceedings in the Alanya District Court, seeking an order for the cancellation of the entry of the property in the land register and for the demolition of the hotel.", "15. An expert report of 31 October 1986 stated that parcel no. 84 was part of the coastline and could not be the subject of an acquisition.", "16. On 31 October 1986 the District Court made an interim order for the suspension of building work on the hotel.", "17. An expert report of 3 March 1987 pointed out that parcel no. 84 was part of the coastline and, as such, could not be owned by a private individual.", "18. In a judgment of 16 June 1987 the District Court ordered the cancellation of the entry in the land register and the demolition of the partially built hotel. It made the following observations:\n“[Having regard to] the expert report [and] ruling on the merits [of the case], ... having regard to the available evidence and, in particular, the photographs and all the other items in the file, the Court considers that the property in issue is part of the seashore [Deniz kıyısı]. Although coastlines remain outside the boundary delimited and fixed in decisions by certain commissions, they cannot constitute property that is subject to private ownership ... the registration of the property in the claimants' name does not confer any rights on them.”", "19. On 9 December 1987 the District Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the interim order of 31 October 1986.", "20. In a judgment of 12 February 1988 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 16 June 1987 and remitted the case to the first-instance court.", "21. In a judgment of 17 February 1989, disregarding the Court of Cassation's judgment, the District Court reaffirmed its initial ruling. It held:\n“... the disputed site is the responsibility and property of the State. In that respect there is no discrepancy with [the judgment] delivered by the plenary Court of Cassation. Even the State, when placing restrictions on the enjoyment of possessions in accordance with property law ..., cannot accept the existence of private property at such a site ... Although the property in issue in the present case was formerly situated within the coastal boundary, it was placed outside that boundary by [a decision of] the commission formed at a later date. The site was quite clearly located on a sandy beach, as, indeed, is apparent from previous judicial decisions that have become final, and from expert reports and photographs ...”", "22. In a judgment of 18 October 1989 the plenary Court of Cassation upheld the judgment given by the lower court, finding it to have interpreted and applied the law correctly.", "23. In a judgment given on an unspecified date the District Court confirmed its initial judgment.", "24. In a judgment of 1 March 1990 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment given at first instance.", "25. In a judgment of 27 September 1990 it dismissed an application for rectification of the judgment.", "26. On 27 September 1991 the applicants brought an action for damages in the Alanya District Court on account of their loss of ownership and the demolition of the partially built hotel.", "27. In a judgment of 1 April 1994 the District Court dismissed the applicants' action on the ground that the State was not liable for the damage resulting from the cancellation of the registration of the property in issue. In its reasoning it stated that the applicants had asserted, on the basis of the entries in the land register, that they had made investments in relation to the land in question and that, as a result of the proceedings brought by the Treasury for the cancellation of the registration, they had sustained a loss. The District Court explained its decision by pointing out that the applicants and their heirs would have been aware that the site was on sandy ground, and that it was impossible for them to maintain that the State had deceived them and for the principle of strict liability to be applied in their case. It concluded that no loss had resulted from the contents of the land register, that the entry had been unlawful from the outset and that the applicants were accordingly not entitled to take proceedings against the State to seek compensation for the loss sustained.", "28. In a judgment of 28 November 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment given at first instance.", "29. In a judgment of 9 December 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed an application for rectification of the judgment." ]	[ 9 ]
[ "8. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.", "9. In 1994 two sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. The first involved a charge of theft, the second a charge of forgery. The second proceedings, which were the object of the present application, began on 14 January 1994. On that day the applicant was arrested and charged with forgery. He was released after 48 hours. As from 3 March 1994 the police unsuccessfully tried to summon him in order to take evidence from him.", "10. On 13 October 1994 the applicant was arrested by the police under a warrant of arrest, issued on 22 June 1994 along with a “wanted” notice. He was then brought before the Wrocław District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy). The applicant made his escape while the prosecutor was taking evidence from him.", "11. On 12 December 1994 the applicant was re-arrested by the police and brought before the Wrocław-Fabryczna District Prosecutor. He was charged with five counts of burglary and one count of escaping from lawful custody. On the same day the prosecutor detained him on remand for three months.", "12. On 3 January 1995 the investigation was taken over by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki).", "13. On 13 June 1995 the Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant with forgery, escaping from lawful custody and seven counts of burglary.", "14. The investigation involved 6 suspects, including the applicant. The prosecution obtained evidence from several witnesses, 17 reports from experts in mechanics and evidence from experts in graphology.", "15. During the investigation, at the request of the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor, the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) on three occasions prolonged the applicant’s detention. The last of the relevant decisions was given on 30 August 1995 and extended the applicant’s detention until 10 December 1995.", "16. In all those decisions the Regional Court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and their serious nature. It also held that his detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings, in particular as during the investigation evidence needed to be obtained from other suspects, experts and numerous witnesses.", "17. On 8 December 1995 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Wrocław Regional Court. The applicant was indicted on charges of handling stolen goods, forgery of documents and escaping from lawful custody.", "18. Between December 1995 and the end of 1996 the applicant lodged numerous applications for release. In particular, he asked to be released on bail. All those applications were dismissed, both at first instance and on appeal.", "19. Neither the applicant, nor his lawyer participated in any of the sessions held by the courts in connection with his applications for release or his subsequent appeals. The sessions were held in camera. The prosecution authorities were informed of session dates and were represented either by a regional prosecutor or a prosecutor of appeal. It was recorded in the minutes of the sessions held on 19 February and 27 June 1996 before the Wrocław Regional Court and on 9 September 1996 before the Wrocław Court of Appeal that the courts made their decisions after having heard the prosecutor’s arguments. The grounds invoked by the courts are stated below.", "20. On 19 February 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court, ruling on the applicant’s application of 12 February 1996, found that:\n“... in the light of evidence there is a sufficient likelihood that [the applicant] committed the offences with which is charged [. A] serious danger to society represented by these offences and need to secure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings, in particular as [he] absconded at the investigative stage of the proceedings, give grounds for his continuing detention.”", "21. The first hearing on the merits was to be held on 22 March 1996 but it was adjourned to 23 May 1996 since one of the applicant’s co-defendants had failed to appear. On 23 May 1996 the trial was postponed to 8 August 1996 because 3 of the applicant’s co-defendants had failed to appear.", "22. On 27 June 1996, the Regional Court rejected two further applications for release, lodged by the applicant on 24 and 25 June 1996 respectively. It held the following:\n“... in the light of evidence there is a sufficient likelihood that [the applicant] committed the offences with which he is charged [. A] serious danger to society created by these offences and need to secure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings give grounds for continuing detention[;] on the other hand, having regard to the fact that [the applicant] absconded at the investigative stage of the proceedings, the possibility of varying the preventive measure cannot be taken into account.”", "23. On 8 August 1996, at the first hearing on the merits held in the applicant’s case, the Regional Court rejected his subsequent application for release. On 9 September 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision, holding that:\n“In his appeal [the applicant] argues that he has already been detained for 20 months and considers that in view of the fact that the trial has begun, he should be released. He also refers to his arrears in child support obligations and to [the situation of] his mother, on whom he [previously] attended.\nThis court has taken account of the following:\nThe period spent by [the applicant] in detention is indeed very long. However, there is no error in [the lower] court’s finding that this is not in itself a particular circumstance which would be a ground for not continuing his detention, as referred to in the first sentence of Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no basis on which to refute the Regional Court’s statements expressing its concern about the proper conduct of the trial without [detention] being imposed on [the applicant]. In the course of the investigation [he] was elusive for the investigating authority and he was twice searched for by a “wanted” notice (see p. 15, volume I). [The applicant’s] detention still has a basis within the meaning of Article 217 § 1 of the [Code of Criminal Procedure] and the circumstances upon which he relies do not suffice for the Court of Appeal to question the decision of the Regional Court in respect of the preventive measure imposed on [him].\nThe case has now reached the stage of the opening of the trial and the subsequent hearings (the dates of which have already been fixed) will soon be held. Accordingly, it is likely that the case will in a short time be terminated which – still more – justifies [an opinion] that the contested decision of the Regional Court should be upheld. ...”", "24. On 27 September 1996 the court held the second hearing. Subsequently, it listed hearings for 20 November 1996 (cancelled as two of the applicant’s co-defendants failed to appear), 28 January 1997 (cancelled as the case-file had been sent to the Supreme Court) and 18 March 1997 (cancelled as one of the co-defendants failed to appear).", "25. Meanwhile, on 31 December 1996 the Regional Court had made an application under Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), asking it to prolong the applicant’s detention until 24 June 1997. The application was posted to the Supreme Court on 10 January 1997.", "26. On 24 January 1997 a panel of three judges, sitting in camera as the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, after obtaining oral comments from the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy), who represented the prosecution, granted the application and prolonged the applicant’s detention “from 24 January 1997 to 24 June 1997”. The Supreme Court’s decision contained exhaustive reasons, the relevant part of which may be summarised as follows:\nThe Supreme Court, noting that the application was filed on 31 December 1996 but posted as late as 10 January 1997, first considered what was the proper date of “lodging” such an application for the purposes of Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\nThe Supreme Court next observed that, depending on the answer to this question, it would have to determine the legal consequences of a potential failure on the part of the Wrocław Regional Court to respect the rule laid down in section 10 (a) § 2 of the Interim Law of 1 December 1995, which stated that in cases where no application for a further prolongation of detention on remand had been “lodged”, detention had to be lifted no later than on 1 January 1997.\nThe Supreme Court considered that it should also deal with the question whether it was competent to rule on the application if it had been “lodged” after the deadline referred to in section 10 (a) of the Interim Law of 1 December 1995, i.e. after 1 January 1997.\nReferring to the first question, the Supreme Court held that the proper date of “lodging” an application under Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had to be deemed to be either the date of posting the application or the date of submitting it to the registry of the Supreme Court since to hold otherwise would mean leaving a detainee without any guarantee that the Supreme Court was properly supervising his detention. Moreover, if the requesting court was not bound by any time-limits for submitting its request, detention, the most severe among the preventive measures, might continue for an unspecified and unlimited time outside the Supreme Court’s supervision. In consequence, an application under Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a mere “proposal” to continue detention, would, for all practical purposes, transform into a basis for continuing detention. Clearly, it was not the intention of the legislator.\nThe Supreme Court therefore concluded that since in the applicant’s case no application for a further prolongation of his detention had been lodged before 1 January 1997, the order for his detention should have been quashed at latest on that day. Accordingly, his detention from that date to the date on which the Supreme Court was giving the present decision lacked any legal basis and was, consequently, unlawful. The court noted that such an “unlawful” detention might justify granting compensation for unlawful deprivation of liberty if this period were not deducted from the future sentence.\nThe Supreme Court went on to find that it was, nevertheless, competent to deal with the application. A lower court’s obligation to release a detainee in case of its failure properly to lodge an application under Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was one thing but its right to make such an application at any time was another. In the Supreme Court’s opinion, the application in question should be deemed a “fresh request” and be examined as such.\nThe Supreme Court then dealt with the application and found that further prolongation of the applicant’s detention was necessary. It relied on the likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the risk of his absconding or going into hiding which, in its view, was justified by the fact that the applicant had already absconded after having been arrested and had been searched for by a “wanted” notice. Lastly, the Supreme Court stressed the complexity of the case.", "27. On 16 May 1997 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from witnesses. On 18 June 1997 the Regional Court held the next hearing. On the same day it made the second application under Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Supreme Court, asking it to prolong the applicant’s detention until 24 December 1997. On 8 August 1997 the Supreme Court granted the application. It held a session in camera. Before taking its decision, it heard arguments of the State Prosecutor. The decision read, in so far as relevant:\n“... the principal charge laid against [the applicant] concerns the offence of handling stolen goods of a high value. A severe penalty, that is, a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment may be imposed for the commission of this offence ... The charges against the applicant have a degree of likelihood, as required by Article 209 of [the Code of Criminal Procedure], in particular in view of the testimonies given by the co-defendants Ł[...], L[...] and B[...] as well as [evidence] which has so far been heard from witnesses. Given that [the applicant], after having been arrested, had on one occasion fled and was then searched for by a “wanted” notice, there is a risk of his absconding or going into hiding. ... Accordingly, his detention has its basis under Article 217 § 1(1) and § 2. In the present case there is a need to take various evidence, in particular from witnesses. The process of obtaining evidence is lengthy and, as it emerges from the case-file, it has been extended because of [the obstacles] which the [trial] court, despite its efforts, could not overcome. Consequently, there are grounds for further prolongation of detention, as defined in Article 222 § 4 of the [Code of Criminal Procedure]. ...”", "28. On 10 September 1997 the applicant applied to the Regional Court for his release. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, submitting that his detention had clearly exceeded a “reasonable time”. On 11 September 1997 a panel of three judges, sitting in camera as the Wrocław Regional Court rejected the application. A.G., a regional prosecutor from the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor’s Office took part in the session and the court heard her arguments. The relevant decision comprises a four-line reasoning, which reads as follows:\n“Since the grounds for continuing detention, mentioned in the decision of the Supreme Court of 8 August 1997 file no. V K0 42/97, are still valid and as there are no circumstances militating in favour of not continuing the preventive measure imposed, it has been held [as in the operative part of the decision].”", "29. On 18 September 1997 the court cancelled a hearing since one of the co-defendants had failed to appear. Further hearings were held on 30 September and 11 and 22 December 1997.", "30. On 22 December 1997 the applicant was released.", "31. A hearing listed for 17 March 1998 was cancelled due to the absence of one of the applicant’s co-defendants. On 11 September 1998 the trial came to an end. On 14 September 1998 the Regional Court delivered judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 3 years’ and 2 months’ imprisonment. The period spent by him in pre-trial detention was deducted from the sentence to be served.", "32. On 24 September 1998 the applicant lodged a notice of appeal with the Regional Court. On 16 October 1998 the applicant’s counsel informed the court that the applicant did not intend to contest the judgment and withdrew his notice of appeal. In consequence, the judgment became final on 10 November 1998.", "33. On 2 December 1998 the applicant asked the Regional Court to grant him retrospective leave to appeal out of time. He maintained that his counsel had withdrawn the notice of appeal without his consent. On 25 February 1999 the court refused his application. The applicant later lodged two further appeals but, eventually, he withdrew his application for leave to appeal out of time on 2 September 1999.", "34. In his original submissions, the applicant maintained that for 17 months following the submission of the bill of indictment to the Regional Court (which took place on 8 December 1995) he had not, in principle, been allowed to maintain personal contact with his family. He asserted that particular restrictions had been placed on his personal contact with his mother.", "35. As it transpires from a letter from the Director of Legal Department of the Central Board of Prisons dated 10 October 2000 and copies of visit permissions given to the applicant’s brother and mother, from 4 February 1995 to 6 December 1995 the applicant’s mother was allowed to visit him in prison on 9 occasions (4 February; 15 March; 23 June; 28 July; 17 August; 13 September; 20 October; 22 November and 6 December 1995. The applicant’s brother was allowed to visit him in prison on 19 July and 27 December 1995.", "36. On 18 December 1995 the applicant’s mother asked the Regional Court to allow her to visit him in prison; in the same letter she stated that she would take advantage of her right to refuse to testify in the applicant’s case. On 20 December 1995 the court rejected her request and held that, on account of the fact that she had been called as a witness by the prosecution, no such permission could be granted as long as evidence from her had not been heard or, alternatively, as long as she refused to give evidence on the ground that she was not qualified to testify as a close relative. The court further stated that the applicant’s mother could refuse to testify only during a hearing in the case", "37. On 21 December 1995 the applicant asked the court to allow his mother to visit him in prison. The court refused on 10 January 1996. On 23 May 1996 the court allowed the applicant’s brother to visit him in prison. On 4 June 1996 the applicant again asked the court to allow his mother to visit him in prison. He also asked for permission to contact his family by phone. The court allowed him to make two phone calls but refused to give a visit permission to his mother since she had not yet given evidence before it.", "38. On 12 July 1996 the applicant asked the court to allow him to speak on the phone to his brother and son. In August, the court allowed him to make a phone call to the son but not to the brother. Overall, in 1996 the applicant was allowed to make three phone calls; two in June and one in August", "39. The applicant submits that the court permission to make phone calls was delivered too late to the prison authorities and, as a result, he could not make use of it.", "40. The applicant’s mother was allowed to resume visits on 16 May 1997 and then, up to 21 November 1997, she visited him 9 times (16 and 25 May; 8 and 15 June; 29 August; 12 September; 3 and 24 October and 21 November 1997). The applicant’s brother was allowed to visit him on 21 and 26 May 1996 and on 4 November 1997." ]	[ 2, 4 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Gorlovka, the Donetsk Region.", "5. On 14 September 1999 the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka awarded the applicant UAH 10,798.45 (approximately EUR 1,800) against the Lenina coal-mine (a State-owned entity, hereafter “the LCM”) for arrears in industrial disablement benefits. The judgment became effective and was sent for execution to the Gorlovka City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”). On 5 October 1999 the Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case.", "6. On 31 October 2000 the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka, referring to the decision of the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration (hereafter “the Court of Arbitration”) of 21 December 1998, whereby the LCM was declared bankrupt, ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to transfer the writ of execution to the LCM’s liquidation commission. According to the aforementioned decision of the Court of Arbitration the liquidation commission in issue was to be comprised of representatives of the LCM’s main creditors, including the State Pension Fund, the State Property Fund, the State Tax Administration and several State owned companies.", "7. On 17 November 2000 the applicant was informed by the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice that it was impossible to transfer the writ of execution to the liquidation commission as no such commission had in fact been created.", "8. On 26 January 2001 the Court of Arbitration’s judge, at the applicant’s request, informed him that the commission had not produced the liquidation balance, as it was supposed to do under the bankruptcy law. The court, however, indicated that the national legislation envisaged no time-limit for that, neither did it provide any sanctions for the commission’s inactivity.", "9. On 8 February 2001 the Court of Arbitration ordered the liquidation commission to produce the abovementioned balance.", "10. On 26 February 2001 the meeting of the LCM’s creditors acknowledged that no liquidation commission had been established.", "11. On 20 March 2001 the Court of Arbitration, at the request of the Ordena Zhovtnevoy Revolutsiyy State Company, suspended the bankruptcy proceedings pending the supervisory review of its decision of 21 December 1998.", "12. On 27 March 2001 the applicant’s writ of execution was sent to the newly created liquidation commission.", "13. On 2 July 2001 the supervisory court quashed the decision of 21 December 1998 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.", "14. On 29 August 2001 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court (a former Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration) extended the term of office of the liquidation commission and, following its proposal appointed a new trustee to run the bankruptcy programme. However, the writs of execution issued against the LCM were returned to the Bailiffs’ Service without enforcement.", "15. The Bailiffs’ Service recommenced the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case. On numerous occasions in 2001 and 2002 they attached the assets belonging to the LCM. In 2002 the applicant was paid a total of 7,533.55 (approximately EUR 1,245) in several instalments.", "16. On 28 December 2002 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered that several coal-mines, including the LCM, merge into the Artemvugillia State Company. Accordingly, the Bailiffs’ Service undertook to replace the debtor in the applicant’s enforcement case. The proceedings resumed in 20 May 2003 when the Bailiffs’ Service levied on the Artemvugillia’s bank accounts.", "17. On 29 November 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings as the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced in full. In his letter of 28 January 2005 the applicant alleged that that was not the case since the LCM still owed him UAH 927 (approximately EUR 155)." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Szczecin, Poland.", "5. On 10 November 1990 the applicant lodged a civil action for compensation against the State Treasury - the Białystok Remand Centre with the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). He alleged that upon his arrival in the Białystok Remand Centre, on 14 December 1989, he had been beaten and insulted by the prison guards and had subsequently not received proper medical care. The applicant claimed that in consequence of the excessive use of force against him he had sustained a spinal injury and suffered permanent disability.\nAt the first hearing held on 20 December 1990 the court appointed a lawyer under a legal aid scheme for the applicant and ordered a copy of the case‑file concerning the criminal investigation concerning the events of December 1989.\nOn 31 January 1991 the court held a hearing at which the applicant’s court‑appointed lawyer, Mr B.Z., was present. The court stayed the proceedings.\nOn 17 July 1992 the Białystok District Court resumed the proceedings. However, on 12 August 1992 it decided to stay them again in view of the fact that the criminal proceedings against the Governor of the Białystok Remand Centre were pending.", "6. On 29 May 1995 the Białystok District Court resumed the proceedings. The court further decided that the Białystok Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) was competent to deal with the case.", "7. On 18 January 1996 the Białystok Regional Court held the first hearing. In January 1997 the applicant was heard before the Trzcianka District Court. Between 18 September and 18 November 1997 the trial court held four hearings.", "8. On 27 November 1997 the Białystok Regional Court gave judgment. It partly allowed the applicant’s action. The court acknowledged that the applicant had suffered moral damage as a result of the illegal actions of the state agents and awarded him compensation. The Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s allegations that the incident had caused a spinal injury and dismissed the remainder of his claims for compensation.", "9. On 7 May 1998 the Białystok Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing and examined the appeal lodged by the State Treasury. The appellate court gave judgment in which it allowed the State Treasury’s appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and dismissed the applicant’s action.", "10. Subsequently, the applicant’s court-appointed lawyer refused to lodge a cassation appeal against this judgment on his behalf as he apparently found no legal grounds for it.", "11. On 28 January 1991 the applicant lodged a civil action for compensation against the State Treasury- Szczecin Remand Centre with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). He claimed PLN 2,500 in compensation for an accident which had occurred in 1983, during his detention in the Szczecin Remand Centre. The applicant further complained that the medical treatment he had received at the material time had been inadequate.", "12. On 11 March 1994 the trial court held the first hearing. The applicant, who had been in detention since 1977, was not present at the hearing because he had failed to return to prison from leave. At that hearing, the court stayed the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant’s address could not be established.", "13. On 20 November 2000 the Szczecin Regional Court resumed the proceedings.", "14. On 24 April 2001 the trial court held a hearing at which it ordered that an expert opinion be obtained. On 13 December 2001 the court held a second hearing at which it decided that the applicant would be heard by another court since he had been transferred to a different prison. On 11 February 2002 the applicant was heard before the Trzcianka District Court. On 26 March and 7 May 2002 the Szczecin Regional Court held hearings.", "15. On 24 May 2002 the trial court gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant’s court-appointed lawyer lodged an appeal against that judgment.", "16. On 13 November 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first‑instance court.", "17. On 9 June 2004 the Szczecin District Court held a hearing at which it heard the applicant.", "18. On 21 June 2004 the court, sitting in camera, decided that an expert opinion be prepared. The expert opinion was submitted to the trial court on 27 October 2004.", "19. On 3 November 2004 the applicant lodged with the Szczecin Regional Court a complaint alleging that his right to have his case examined within a reasonable time had been breached. He submitted that he had lodged a civil action on 28 January 1991 and despite the fact that he had not contributed to their length, the proceedings were still pending before the District Court. The applicant relied on the 2004 Act on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. At that time, the proceedings were pending before the District Court following the remittal of the case by the appellate court in 2002. According to the 2004 Act the Regional Court – being the court above the one conducting the impugned proceedings - was competent to examine the complaint (Section 4 § 1 of the 2004 Act, see the domestic law part below).", "20. On 7 January 2005 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed his complaint. The court examined only the course of the proceedings after the remittal of the case by the appellate court on 13 November 2002 and found no delays on the part of the District Court. As result, the court found that during this period the District Court had not violated the applicant’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. The Regional Court considered that it could not examine the part of the proceedings that had been pending between 1991 and 2002 before the Regional Court as this part of proceedings had already ended. The court stated:\n“...The District Court cannot be held responsible for possible delays that might have occurred before the Regional Court during the period between 24 May 1991 when the case was transferred to it and 14 May 2002 when the court gave a judgment...\nAccording to the provisions [of the 2004 Act] the Regional Court examining the complaint lodged by [the applicant] that the proceedings in his case before the District Court exceeded a reasonable time is not entitled to examine the course of the proceedings before the Szczecin Regional Court...”", "21. It appears that the civil proceedings in this case are pending before the Szczecin District Court." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "7. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Uşak.", "8. On 15 December 1997 the applicant was arrested by the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the İzmir Police Headquarters on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the Revolutionary Communists’ Union of Turkey (“the TIKB”, Türkiye İhtilalci Komünistler Birliği) and placed in custody.", "9. In her statement of 18 December 1997 the applicant declared that she aided and abetted the members of the TIKB and that she provided information to the TIKB members who were held in prison.", "10. On 19 December 1997 the applicant was brought before the Public Prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court and then before the judge, where she denied all the charges against her. She declared that her statement in police custody was taken under duress and that she had been given electric shocks. The judge ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial.", "11. On 23 December 1997 the Public Prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation, aiding and abetting the organisation, providing information to its members who were imprisoned and participating in the demonstrations organised by the organisation.", "12. On 4 June 1998 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and sentenced her to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.", "13. On 23 June 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Cassation.", "14. On 20 September 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of State Security Court.", "15. On 14 October 2000 the Court of Cassation’s decision was deposited with the registry of İzmir State Security Court." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Tököl, Hungary.", "5. On 9 November 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, a bank manager, and his accomplices on suspicion of fraud. In the ensuing proceedings, the applicant was assisted by defence counsel of his choice.\nOn 25 September 1996 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other individuals charging them with fraud and other offences.", "6. After the completion of the bill of indictment, between 1 April and 21 October 1997 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court, sitting as a first-instance court, held nine hearings. Subsequently the proceedings were halted on account of the non-appearance of a co-accused for trial and an unsuccessful motion for bias filed by the latter. The hearings resumed on 5 January 1999. Between that date and 2 June 1999 the court held 29 hearings altogether.", "7. On 2 June 1999 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated mismanagement and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The Regional Court relied on the testimonies of numerous witnesses, the opinions of experts and documentary evidence.", "8. On 28 September 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s sentence.", "9. On 20 March 2001 the review bench of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s petition for review." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was chairman of the board of directors of two private limited companies, in the following referred to as “HotLine Production” and “HotLine Export”, or together “the HotLine companies”.", "5. In the 1990’s the HotLine companies entered into business with a private limited company, henceforth referred to as “Intertex”, concerning the use of modem components. Following a dispute, in December 1994 Intertex instituted civil proceedings before the District Court of Stockholm (Stockholms Tingsrätt) against HotLine Production and in October 1995 against HotLine Export, claiming compensation for the alleged exploitation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and infringement of copyright.", "6. The cases were dealt with in joint proceedings and by judgment of 14 July 1997 the District Court found HotLine Production liable to pay damages to Intertex in the amount of 13,180,225 Swedish kronor (SEK), equal to approximately 1,442,701 euros (EUR), for which HotLine Export was found jointly liable as to SEK 7,516,875.", "7. On appeal, before the Court of Appeal (Svea Hovrätt) on 19 January 1998 the applicant claimed that the judgment should be set aside and the case referred back to the District Court. In support thereof he submitted that the latter had not decided whether or not some disputed printed circuits were to be regarded as trade secrets. Written observations were submitted, and on 6 October 1998 the applicant urged the Court of Appeal to remit the case to the District Court as soon a possible. His claim was refused on 22 March 1999 by the Court of Appeal, and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) was refused on 3 May 1999. In vain the applicant repeated his request in this respect on 16 April 1999 and 12 April 2000.", "8. By decision of 30 November 2000, the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court judgment of 14 July 1997 and referred the case back to the District Court on account of procedural errors because the latter had wrongly assumed that the question whether some printed circuits were to be regarded as trade secrets was non-contentious and therefore had not determined it. Intertex’s request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the remittal was refused on 10 September 2001.", "9. The trial took place in the period between 16 September and 2 October 2002, and on 23 October 2002 the District Court delivered its second judgment finding HotLine Production liable to pay damages to Intertex in the amount of SEK 1,742,000, equal to approximately EUR 190,678, and rejecting Intertex’s action against HotLine Export.", "10. Both parties appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal, before which apparently the case is still pending.\nThe proceedings between Intertex and the applicant.", "11. In the meantime, on 27 December 1995 Intertex instituted civil proceedings before the District Court of Stockholm against the applicant claiming compensation in the amount of SEK 11,325,000, an amount that was subsequently modified several times, alleging that pursuant to Chapter 15, § 1 of the Companies Act (Aktiebolagslagen) the applicant had incurred liability in his role as chairman of the board of directors for having taken various questionable measures in order to intentionally reduce the HotLine companies’ net capital. Thus, if the Hotline companies were to lose their case against Intertex, the former would not be in a position to pay any compensation which might be awarded to Intertex in these proceedings. The case was assigned to the same division of the District Court that examined the case lodged by Intertex against the HotLines companies, and on 26 March 1996 a common preparatory session was held in the two cases. Another two of such sessions were held in respectively December 1996 and January 1997, subsequent to which, on 20 January 1997 the District Court decided to adjourn the proceedings in the Intertex v. the applicant case pending the outcome of the case Intertex v. the Hotline companies.", "12. At the request of Intertex, on 17 February 1998 the District Court decided by way of an interim measure to sequestrate as much of the applicant’s property as corresponded to an amount of SEK 9,500,000, equal to approximately EUR 1,039,865. De facto, however, the value of the applicant’s possessions that were sequestrated never exceeded SEK 275,000, equal to EUR 30,101. In order to provide security for any loss which the applicant might suffer in this respect, Intertex had to provide a banker’s guarantee to the court in the amount of SEK 500,000. The applicant appealed in vain against the sequestration order and his subsequent requests that the District Court revoke it were refused on 23 April, 26 May and 3 July 1998, and on 12 July and 5 August 1999. On appeal, the decisions were upheld, as to the latest by the Court of Appeal on 17 November 1999, against which decision the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on 21 January 2000.", "13. Eventually, however, by decision of 7 March 2001 the District Court lifted the sequestration order.", "14. In the meantime, on 8 May 2000 the City Court rejected the applicant’s request that the stay of the proceedings be revoked, a decision that was upheld on appeal on 16 June 2000 by the Court of Appeal.", "15. On 7 March 2001 the applicant requested that Intertex’s action should be dismissed as being unlawful in that it did not relate to a claim that was due or even a fixed amount. The sequestration order having been lifted beforehand, his request was rejected by the District Court on 8 May 2001.", "16. Anew, on 5 October 2001 the applicant requested that the stay of the proceedings be revoked. Consequently, on 31 January 2002 in the two sets of proceedings, a common preparatory session was held before the District Court, at which the parties accepted that a separate judgment be passed in the Intertex v. the applicant case. Shortly thereafter, on 7 February 2002, Intertex brought a new action against the applicant, which it requested be joined with its original action, a request that was complied with on 15 February 2002.", "17. On 20 March 2002 the District Court passed its separate judgment refusing to dismiss Intertex’s action, and stating that if it was established in the case Intertex v. the HotLine companies that the former had a money claim against the latter, that claim should form the basis of the assessment in the proceedings between Intertex and the applicant. Also, the proceedings should continue to be stayed awaiting the outcome of the proceedings between Intertex and the HotLine companies. The applicant’s appeal against the part of the judgment that concerned the refusal to dismiss the action was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 3 January 2003. The applicant did not specifically appeal against the part of the District Court’s judgment that concerned the continued stay of the proceedings." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "6. The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Warsaw.", "7. On 15 April 1992 a certain company U submitted a bill of exchange in the amount of PLN 50,000 signed by the applicant and requested the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) to issue an order for payment against him and other partners in the civil association K (spółka cywilna).", "8. On 9 June 1992 the court made the order for payment, allowing the plaintiff’s application. The applicant lodged an appeal against that order.", "9. Subsequently, the applicant applied for exemption from the court fees. On 4 July 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) finally allowed his application.", "10. The Warsaw Regional Court scheduled hearings for 22 May, 18 September, 23 October and 24 November 1997. However, all of them were adjourned. Between 8 December 1997 and 18 May 1998 five hearings were adjourned.", "11. On 18 June 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in which it upheld the Warsaw District Court’s order of 9 June 1992. The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment.", "12. On 12 March 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.", "13. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).", "14. On 13 November 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "7. The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in the Orenburg Region.", "8. As of 25 August 1995 the applicant has been in receipt of his old-age pension from the social security authorities.", "9. On 23 June 1997 the Federal Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions («О порядке исчисления и увеличения государственных пенсий», “the Pensions Law”) was adopted. It introduced a new scheme of calculating retirement benefits – “Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”).", "10. On 1 February 1998 the amount of the applicant’s pension was re-assessed according to the Pensions Law. The Sakmarsky District Welfare Office of the Orenburg Region (Управление социальной защиты населения Сакмарского района Оренбургской области) decided that the IPC to be applied in the applicant’s case should be 0.420.", "11. The applicant, who believed that he was eligible to an IPC of 0.641, sued the Sakmarsky District Welfare Office for insufficient increase of his pension.", "12. On 11 October 1999 the Sakmarskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region found that the defendant had misinterpreted the Pensions Law. It granted the applicant’s claim to apply the IPC at 0.641 for calculating his pension, increasing it by RUR 400, and awarded him arrears of RUR 3,647.82.", "13. On 16 December 1999 the Orenburg Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, and the judgment of 11 October 1999 became final.", "14. On 10 July 2000 the President of the Orenburg Regional Court lodged an extraordinary appeal (протест в порядке надзора) against the judgment of 11 October 1999.", "15. On 17 July 2000 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court examined the extraordinary appeal in the supervisory review procedure.", "16. The Presidium found that the lower courts misinterpreted the Pensions Law. It varied the judgment of 11 October 1999 and the decision of 16 December 1999 by reinstating the applicant’s IPC at 0.420 and annulling the previously awarded increase as well as the arrears." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "7. The applicants were born in 1961 and 1962 respectively and live in the village of Kormilovka, Omsk Region.", "8. The applicants, a married couple, used to live in Kargasok of the Tomsk Region where they worked as veterinarians. The first applicant held the position of Head Veterinarian of the Kargasok District.", "9. On 26 September 1996 criminal proceedings for fraud were instituted against the first applicant and an obligation not to leave the place of his residence without permission was imposed on him as a preventive measure. On 22 October 1996 by an order of the investigator the first applicant was suspended from his employment.", "10. In February 1998 criminal proceedings for fraud were instituted against the second applicant and an obligation not to leave the place of her residence without permission was imposed on her as a preventive measure.", "11. The criminal proceedings against both applicants were joined on 17 August 1998. The applicants were accused of submitting false reports on business trips in order to obtain cash from the veterinary practice where the first applicant worked unlawfully.", "12. On 17 July 2000 the applicants asked for the obligation not to leave their place of residence without permission to be cancelled. It appears that the application was not considered.", "13. Over the course of six years the criminal case was several times remitted by the courts for additional investigation: in May 1997 and on 5 February 1998, 21 September 1999, 31 May 2000 and 31 October 2000.", "14. In 2001 the applicants' minor son was invited to attend an interview for a place at the Omsk State Agrarian University. The applicants submitted that he did not attend the interview since neither of them was allowed to accompany him in the journey to Omsk. On an unspecified date the acting prosecutor of the Kargasok District provided the second applicant with the following letter:\n“[The letter] is given to Ms Bevia Andreyevna Fedorova ... in order to confirm that on 10-11 July 2001 she was summoned to the Prosecutor's Office of the Kargasok District, as a result of which she could not leave for Omsk together with her son and be present at ... the interview on 12 July.\n[The letter] is to be presented to the examination panel of the Institute of Veterinary Medicine at the Omsk State Agrarian University.”\nThe applicants' son, having passed general entry exams, was later admitted to the University.", "15. On 13 August 2002 the Parabelskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region acquitted the applicants and cancelled the obligation not to leave their place of residence without permission. On appeal, on 16 December 2002 the Tomsk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination by a different composition of judges.", "16. On 8 May 2003 the Parabelskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicants for lack of indication that a crime had been committed. The ruling was quashed on appeal on 30 June 2003 by the Tomsk Regional Court, which remitted the case for a fresh examination to the Molchanovskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region.", "17. The Molchanovskiy District Court convicted the first applicant of misappropriation of property held in trust and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment on 31 December 2003. He was not required to serve the sentence on account of the statutory time-bar. The second applicant was fully acquitted. The court also lifted the obligation not to leave the place of residence without permission in respect of both applicants, although it had already been cancelled by the Parabelskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region on 13 August 2002.", "18. On appeal, on 15 April 2004 the Tomsk Regional Court reversed the judgment in the part relating to the conviction of the first applicant and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The court decided not to apply any measures of restraint in respect of the applicant.", "19. The case was subsequently transmitted to the Sovetskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region. On 28 February 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region convicted the first applicant of misappropriation of property held in trust and sentenced him conditionally to one year's imprisonment. The court, however, released the applicant from the punishment because of the expiry of the statutory time-limit.", "20. On 25 April 2005 the Tomsk Regional Court reversed the judgment on appeal. It held that the first instance court should not have first convicted the applicant of the offence and then released him from the punishment, but should have terminated the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of expiry of the statutory time-limit." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "8. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Chapayevsk, Samara Region.", "9. On 4 September 1995 the Commercial Court of the Samara Region (Арбитражный суд Самарской области) granted a claim by the applicant's employer – a private company – for recovery of damages against the Chapayevsk Social Security Service (Управление социальной защиты населения администрации г. Чапаевска).", "10. On 15 August 1997 the applicant's employer assigned her a part of the judgment debt in the amount of RUR 114,000,000 towards salary due.[1] The applicant applied to the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region for execution of the judgment on 29 May 1998.", "11. It appears that by 2001 only the amount of RUR 16,000[2] has been paid to the applicant. As the judgment had not been executed in full, in 2001 she filed a claim with the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region against the Chapayevsk Social Security Service for recovery of the sum with interest.", "12. The Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region dismissed the claim on 5 April 2001 on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate her calculation of the amount of the interest. On 19 September 2001 the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court, following an application for supervisory review lodged by the President of the Samara Regional Court, quashed the judgment of 5 April 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.", "13. On 21 June 2002 the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region dismissed the claim and indicated that the execution of judgment by the Chapayevsk Social Security Service had been carried out according to the sums allocated from the budget. Thus, in 2000 the budget estimate provided for RUR 16,000 to be paid in instalments during that year. The estimate for 2001 provided for RUR 5,000 to be paid to the applicant, and the estimate for 2002 provided for RUR 12,000, out of which RUR 5,000 was paid to the applicant as of 1 June 2002. The outstanding debt remained at RUR 87,445.\nIt is not clear whether any further payments have been made." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Bratislava.", "5. On 15 August 1990 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava II District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) seeking a judicial ruling declaring void his dismissal from his job earlier in 1990 and an order for payment of an amount of money by way of compensation.", "6. On 19 August 1991 the District Court dismissed the action. On the applicant’s appeal the Bratislava Regional Court (then Mestský súd, at present Krajský súd) quashed the judgment on 29 April 1992.", "7. On 29 October 1992 the District Court ruled that the applicant’s dismissal was void and that he was entitled to financial compensation. As to the scope of the entitlement the District Court granted a part of the claim and dismissed its reminder. No appeal was filed against the ruling concerning the validity of the dismissal and it became final and binding on 3 December 1992. However, both parties challenged the ruling concerning the compensation.", "8. On 26 February 1993 the Regional Court quashed the part of the judgment of 29 October 1992 concerning the compensation and remitted this issue to the District Court for the taking of further evidence and re‑consideration.", "9. In judgments of 30 May 1994, 18 March 1996 and 29 November 2002 the District Court successively granted various parts of the applicant’s claim for compensation and dismissed its remainder. These judgments were challenged by appeals, the first two by the applicant and the last one by the defendant.", "10. In judgments of 28 March 1995, 23 May 1997 and 1 July 2004 the Regional Court, respectively, quashed the judgment of 30 May 1994 and parts of the judgments of 18 March 1996 and 29 November 2002 as there were numerous procedural and substantive errors. A minor part of the applicant’s claim has thus been allowed with final effect but by far the greater part is still pending before the District Court.", "11. In the period from 12 October 1993 to 17 May 2005 the District Court and the Regional Court held 15 and 4 hearings respectively. Two of the hearings had to be adjourned as no representative of the defendant appeared, for which it was sanctioned by a procedural fine. A part of the claim was granted by way of an interim award; further and better particulars were obtained from the applicant; he submitted further evidence; the case was assigned to a new judge at the District Court; two members of the Regional Court chamber retired and had to be replaced; and the District Court sought an expert report concerning the calculation of the claimed amount.", "12. On 23 November 2000, on the applicant’s petition (podnet), the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) found that the District Court had violated his right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.", "13. The Constitutional Court observed that it had jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider only the period after 15 February 1993 when it had been established. It nevertheless took into account the state of the proceedings at that time. The part of the proceedings within its temporal jurisdiction had lasted more than 7 years and 9 months.\nThe Constitutional Court found that the case was not of a particular complexity and noted that after the District Court’s judgment of 29 October 1992 the subject matter of the proceedings had been narrowed to the applicant’s claim for compensation. The applicant had not caused any substantial delays and what was at stake for him called for special diligence.\nThe Constitutional Court pointed out that the District Court’s judgments of 30 May 1994 and 18 March 1996 had had to be quashed due to its failure to establish the relevant facts adequately and to follow the instructions of the court of appeal. Moreover, the District Court had been inactive without any justification from 9 April 1993 to 21 January 1994, from 23 October 1997 to 29 July 1998 and from 14 October 1998 to 13 March 2000. The Constitutional Court also noted that the action was still pending before the District Court and that the latter had taken no steps with a view to obtaining the expert report requested on 3 May 2000 in a timely fashion." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "9. The applicants were born in 1960, 1952, 1965 and 1945 respectively, and live in the city of Van.", "10. The facts of the case, particularly concerning the events which occurred between 7 and 15 September 2001, are disputed by the parties.", "11. The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-17). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 18-25). The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 26-65).", "12. Mr Ebuzeyt Aslan is the first applicant’s elder brother and is the husband of the third applicant, Mrs Türkan Aslan. Mr Halit Aslan is the second applicant’s cousin and is the husband of the fourth applicant, Mrs Nihari Aslan.", "13. On 7 September 2001 Ebuzeyt Aslan and Halit Aslan left their homes in Van for Beytüşşebap, a town within the administrative jurisdiction of the city of Şırnak. Nothing was heard from them until 15 September 2001 when Zübeyt Aslan, a relative, received an anonymous telephone call. The caller told Zübeyt Aslan that Ebuzeyt and Halit had been killed in an operation conducted by village guards and soldiers in the Dereyatağı area (Dereyatağı Mevkii) near the Geçitli hamlet, within the boundaries of Yeşilöz village. The person then hung up. After the call, the relatives of Ebuzeyt and Halit Aslan went to the local branches of the Human Rights Association in Diyarbakır and Van to ask for assistance.", "14. A group of 30 relatives went to the Prosecutor’s office in Beytüşşebap. The Prosecutor confirmed what had been said by the anonymous caller. The Prosecutor further stated that the place where the incident had taken place was in a dangerous area and that he could not therefore hand the bodies over to them. He told the relatives to talk to the commander of the Provincial Gendarmerie Regiment. The identity cards of the members of the group who subsequently went to the Regiment were taken by the soldiers and they were kept waiting at the barracks for the rest of the day. The group was later escorted by soldiers to the outskirts of Beytüşşebap and told not to return or they would suffer the same fate as their relatives.", "15. On 21 September 2001 the Diyarbakır Branch of the Human Rights Association by letter informed the Ministry of the Interior, the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish Parliament, the Governor of the Emergency Region, the Secretary of State Responsible for Human Rights, the Şırnak Governor, the Prosecutor’s Office in Şırnak, the offices of the Prosecutor and the Governor in Beytüşşebap, of the deaths of Ebuzeyt and Halit Aslan. They requested the authorities to investigate this incident and to find the perpetrators. They further requested that official identifications of the bodies and autopsies be carried out.", "16. Amnesty International was also informed and requested to make an urgent appeal.", "17. The applicants claim that neither Halit Aslan, who was born in 1939, nor Ebuzeyt Aslan, who was born in 1954, had any connections with the PKK[1]. Moreover, Halit Aslan had been suffering from health problems.", "18. On 10 September 2001 a military operation was initiated by the Beytüşşebap Gendarmerie Regiment’s Commander (Beytüşşebap Jandarma Alay Komutanlığı) in the Yeşilöz-Faraşin area.", "19. At around 5.30 p.m. on 12 September 2001, i.e. on the third day of the operation, the gendarme soldiers were confronted by a group of terrorists in the vicinity of Dereyatağı. When the terrorists refused to surrender an armed clash ensued.", "20. A search was conducted in the area by the soldiers after the clash had ended. In the course of the search the bodies of two terrorists were found together with a Kalashnikov rifle, four cartridges, 27 rockets and 22 empty bullet shells.", "21. The search of the vicinity continued the next morning and during this search the body of a third terrorist was found. The booby trap on this third body was made safe by the soldiers.", "22. It was established by the soldiers that the remaining terrorists had escaped towards the city of Van.", "23. According to a record of the operation drawn up by the soldiers, it had been impossible to transport the bodies of the terrorists since the area was very mountainous, the distance between the location of the bodies and the city centre too great, and the soldiers had no vehicles at their disposal. A decision had therefore been taken to leave the corpses in the area and they had been covered with stones to protect them from wild animals. It was also impossible for the soldiers to take photographs of the bodies since they had no cameras with them.", "24. Following the incident, the weather conditions allowed the authorities to visit the site on 29 September, 17 October, 22 October, 4 November, 21 November, 17 December 2001 and, finally, on 8 January 2002. On those dates the authorities visited the site in order to take photographs of the bodies and to carry out autopsies. However, despite extensive searches, the bodies, allegedly those of Halit Aslan and Ebuzeyt Aslan, could not be found. It was assumed that the bodies had decomposed or been taken by terrorists.", "25. It has not yet been established whether the bodies found after the operation on 12 September 2001 were those of the applicants’ relatives. Furthermore, contrary to what was alleged by the applicants, the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor did not make any claim that it was not possible to hand over the bodies to the relatives.", "26. The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties.", "27. According to the record of the operation drawn up on 13 September 2001 by the gendarme soldiers who took part in an operation on 12 September 2001, the bodies of three terrorists were found in the operation area. Quantities of food and ammunition were also found. The report further listed the amount of ammunition used by the soldiers. According to this list, the gendarme soldiers from the 5th Gendarme Battalion had used a total number of 1,553 bullets, 15 hand grenades and 3 RPG-7 rockets. The soldiers from the Beytüşşebap District Gendarme had used a total of 1,128 bullets.", "28. On 18 September 2001 the ammunition left by the PKK was handed over to the Beytüşşebap Gendarme Commander’s office.", "29. On 19 September 2001 this record of the operation was forwarded to the Prosecutor’s office in Beytüşşebap, together with the ammunition that had been found.", "30. On 17 September 2001 Hazım Aslan, Zübeyt Aslan and Hacı Aslan submitted two petitions to the Van Prosecutor’s office and informed the Prosecutor about the anonymous telephone call that had been received by Zübeyt Aslan, who had been told about the killing of Ebuzeyt and Halit Aslan. They asked the Prosecutor to assist them in obtaining the bodies of their relatives. On the same day, the Van Prosecutor forwarded these petitions to the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor’s office in whose jurisdiction the incident had taken place.", "31. On 17 September 2001 the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor asked the Beytüşşebap Gendarme Commander’s office to clarify the accuracy of the allegations contained in the petitions.", "32. On 19 September 2001 the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor questioned Hazım Aslan, Zübeyt Aslan and Hacı Aslan in connection with their petitions. The three men gave a description of their disappeared relatives and stated that neither Ebuzeyt nor Halit had ever been involved in any PKK activity. They also stated that Yeşilöz village, where their relatives had allegedly been killed, had been evacuated and that no one was living there. Zübeyt Aslan further stated that his brother Halit Aslan might have gone to that area to smuggle Iraqi and Iranian persons into Turkey.", "33. On 24 September 2001 the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor questioned Kürşat Soysal, the gendarme captain in charge of the military operation, and Tevfik Baştürk, a sergeant-major who also took part in the operation. Captain Soysal stated that, as he and the soldiers under his command had approached the Geçitli hamlet on 12 September 2001, they had been informed by radio that an armed man was walking towards the lower part of the village. Captain Soysal had also seen an armed man near the Dereyatağı area. Captain Soysal stated, inter alia, the following:\n“I then ordered my soldiers to be quick and not to lose sight of the armed men. It was around 5.30 p.m. As far as I know, the village where these two men were seen had been uninhabited between 8 to 10 years. The area is not suitable for grazing animals. It is an area used by the terrorist organisation. The firing began approximately one minute after I alerted my soldiers. After the firing had stopped I saw one of the bodies. There was a Kalashnikov rifle next to the body. The body belonged to a man over 40 years of age. There were no documents on the body to help identify the person. When I examined the rifle it became apparent that it had recently been fired. We also found four empty cartridges in the area. I was informed by the soldiers that there was another body at the upper part [of the village] but I did not personally see that body. We aborted the search as it was getting dark and moved to a more secure area. When we resumed the search next morning, I saw the other body. It was that of a man of approximately 35 years of age. There were no weapons near the body. Also, there were no identification documents on the body. We then saw the third body of a man of approximately 25 years of age. His body had been badly damaged, possibly by a rocket missile. I thought it possible that he had killed himself. There was a booby trap on this body and we made it safe. We covered the bodies with stones as we did not have any equipment with which we could dig graves for them. The area where we left the bodies is approximately 45 kilometres from here. We did not have any vehicles at our disposal. There are also landmines on the roads in that area.”", "34. Sergeant-major Baştürk gave a similar statement to the Prosecutor.", "35. On 24 September 2001 the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor asked the Beytüşşebap Governor to clarify whether anyone was living in the Geçitli area near the Yeşilöz village and whether the area was being used by villagers to graze their animals.", "36. On the same day the Prosecutor also asked for copies of registry documents relating to the two disappeared persons to be forwarded to him.", "37. Again on the same day, the Prosecutor asked the Beytüşşebap Gendarme Commander’s office about the possibility of the bodies being brought down from the area where they had been killed. In the alternative, the Prosecutor asked for body and hair samples to be obtained from the bodies for identification purposes.", "38. On an unspecified date in September 2001 General Yavuz Ertürk instructed the forces under his command to find the bodies in order to obtain body samples.", "39. Captain Soysal informed the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor on 29 September 2001 of an attempt made by him and his soldiers the previous day to recover the bodies. Their attempt to reach the area had been hampered by fog and heavy rain.", "40. On 1 October 2001 Hakan Torun, a first lieutenant and commander of the Beytüşşebap Gendarmerie Headquarters, informed the Prosecutor that bringing the bodies back could only be achieved if the security forces organised an operation. Given the limited number of soldiers under his command, it was not possible for him to carry out such an operation alone. If it was not possible to organise such an operation, then it might be possible to obtain body and hair samples from the corpses.", "41. On 2 October 2001 the Beytüşşebap Governor informed the Prosecutor that the Geçitli hamlet of Yeşilöz had been evacuated in 1989 and that no one had lived there since. Furthermore, the villagers were not allowed to take their animals out to graze in the area.", "42. On 5 October 2001 the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor asked the Prosecutor in the town of Özalp, in whose jurisdiction the two disappeared persons used to live, to establish the date on which the latter had left their homes. He also asked whether any official complaints had been lodged in relation to the disappearance. The Prosecutor finally asked his colleague in Özalp to question Hacı Aslan, the son of the disappeared Halit Aslan.", "43. On 9 September 2001 a statement was taken from Hacı Aslan by the Özalp Prosecutor. Mr Aslan stated that his mother – that is the fourth applicant Nihari Aslan – had told him that his father and Ebuzeyt Aslan had left for Beytüşşebap where they had relatives. He thought that his father had possibly been shot by the soldiers for having entered a military area. He stated that his father had left the Beytüşşebap area because of his fear of the PKK and it was therefore improbable that his father was a terrorist or that he had carried weapons. His father had never been arrested in the past; in fact, he had never set foot in a police station. Even assuming that his father was a terrorist, this would not justify the refusal of the gendarmerie to hand over his father’s body. At the Beytüşşebap gendarmerie commander’s office he had been told that the bodies could not be handed over because the deceased were terrorists. He had also been told that he would be shot if he attempted to recover the bodies himself.", "44. On 10 October 2001 the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor asked the 23rd Gendarme Border Division Commander’s office (23. Jandarma Sınır Tümen Komutanlığı) whether it would be possible to recover the bodies or, in the alternative, to obtain body samples from them.", "45. According to a report drawn up on 17 October 2001 by a gendarme sergeant-major, another attempt to recover the bodies had been made on 16 October 2001 by two fully equipped gendarme teams, joined by two commando units. This operation had to be aborted the following day as it was too cold, foggy and wet.", "46. On 18 October 2001 the 23rd Gendarme Border Division Commander’s office replied to the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor’s request that the bodies could only be recovered by means of an operation conducted in the area. The Prosecutor was also informed in the same letter that work on the feasibility of such an operation had already begun.", "47. On 18 October 2001 Hazım Aslan, a relative of the two disappeared men, said in a statement made to the police that the family had made applications to the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor’s office as well as to the Şırnak Brigade Commander’s office (Şırnak Tugay Komutanlığı).", "48. According to a report drawn up on 22 October 2001 by a gendarme major, a third attempt to recover the bodies had been made on 21 October 2001. It too had had to be aborted as the area was covered with snow.", "49. Similar attempts were made on 3 November, 20 November and 16 December 2001 and, finally, on 8 January 2002. The snow had by then reached a height of 50-60 centimetres and there was also a risk of avalanches, with the result that these operations had to be aborted.", "50. A meeting was held on 20 November 2001 by the Provincial Human Rights Council (İnsan Hakları İl Kurulu). The Council, which was presided over by the provincial Governor, consisted of the local mayor, the provincial gendarmerie commander, the police chief of the province as well as a number of civil servants. According to the minutes of the meeting, the Council, having examined the evidence in the file, reached the conclusion that no innocent civilians had been killed in the operation. The Council further noted that the preliminary investigation was still continuing and that autopsies could not be carried out due to the lack of transportation facilities and geographic difficulties. The Council stated that efforts to recover the bodies would continue.", "51. On 21 December 2001 Hacı Aslan, son of the disappeared Halit Aslan, said in a statement made at the Özalp Prosecutor’s office that the family had not made any official complaints in relation to the disappearance of their relatives.", "52. On 25 January 2002 the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor asked the Beytüşşebap gendarmerie commander’s office to forward him copies of the documents concerning the evacuation of the Yeşilöz village. The Prosecutor also asked whether it could have been possible for the two disappeared men to have gone to the Dereyatağı area on foot. The Prosecutor finally asked for copies of documents concerning the clashes between the security forces, the village guards and terrorists in the area and also of documents concerning the cultivation of cannabis in the vicinity.", "53. The same day the Beytüşşebap gendarmerie replied to the Prosecutor’s request that the Geçitli hamlet had been evacuated due to the actions of the PKK and on the request of the villagers. There was no reason, therefore, for Halit Aslan and Abuzeyt Aslan to go to the area.", "54. On 28 January 2002 the Beytüşşebap gendarmerie commander’s office further informed the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor that the villagers had left the village of their own free will because of PKK terrorist activities. The Prosecutor was also informed that the two persons could have taken the bus from Van to the town of Beytüşşebap, but that there were no roads to the village and the area was not safe. The Prosecutor was finally informed that there had been 31 attacks by the PKK in the area between 1989 and 2001.", "55. On 5 March 2002 the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor drew up a report (fezleke) in which he set out the developments in his investigation and forwarded it to the Ministry of Justice on 19 March 2002. The Prosecutor asked the Ministry to grant authorisation for the prosecution of Hakan Torun, the commander of the Beytüşşebap Gendarmerie Headquarters, for his alleged professional negligence in the failure to produce the bodies for an autopsy.", "56. On 1 May 2002 another attempt was made by the gendarmerie to reach the area in order to find the bodies. This time the soldiers were able to reach the area but, despite carrying out a search on 1 and 2 May, they were unable to find the bodies.", "57. On 8 May 2002 the Ministry of Justice granted the authorisation requested by the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor (see paragraph 55 above).", "58. On 20 May 2002 the Prosecutor in Şırnak sent a letter to his colleague in Beytüşşebap, requesting him to ask the gendarmerie to make yet another attempt to find the bodies. The Beytüşşebap Prosecutor was also asked to summons Hakan Torun to the Prosecutor’s office in Şırnak.", "59. On 24 May 2002 Hakan Torun was served the summons to appear before the Şırnak Prosecutor.", "60. On 12 July 2002 the Şırnak Prosecutor drew the attention of his colleague in Beytüşşebap to Hakan Torun’s failure to appear before him and urged his colleague to find him.", "61. Hakan Torun, who was found by the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor on 12 July 2002, informed the latter of his intention to go to the Şırnak Prosecutor’s office as soon as possible.", "62. On 23 July 2002 the Şırnak Prosecutor sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice, saying that he had carried out an investigation into the actions of Hakan Torun and had concluded that Hakan Torun had not been negligent in the failure to find the bodies. According to the Prosecutor, finding the bodies would have required a major operation and it was impossible for Hakan Torun to carry out such an operation with the limited number of soldiers under his command. It appears from this letter that Hakan Torun had been questioned by the Şırnak Prosecutor.", "63. On 12 November 2002 the Beytüşşebap Prosecutor handed over the investigation file to his colleague in Şırnak.", "64. On 20 November 2002 the Şırnak Prosecutor decided not to prosecute Hakan Torun on the ground that an investigation had already been carried out and the Ministry of Justice had been informed.", "65. On 30 January 2003 the Gendarme Headquarters in Ankara sent a letter to the Ministry of Interior setting out their answers to questions put by the Court as to whether and what serious attempts had been made to recover the bodies during the spring and summer of 2002 and whether the ammunition recovered had been examined for fingerprints. According to the Gendarme Headquarter’s letter, eight attempts had been made between 29 September 2001 and 8 January 2002 but the bodies had not been found. It was possible that the bodies had decomposed naturally or that they had been taken away by the terrorist organisation. The area where the bodies had been left was 2,668 metres in altitude and, because of the weather conditions, it had not been possible to reach the area by helicopter. The distance to the area had rendered it difficult for the soldiers to bring back the ammunition that had been found, and an examination of the ammunition carried out at the military base had not revealed any prints." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "7. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Costeşti.", "8. In 1995, the applicant lodged with the Ialoveni District Court a civil action against Costeşti Municipal Council claiming compensation for alleged illegal acts.", "9. On 6 October 1995, the Ialoveni District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded her 675 Moldovan lei (MDL). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.", "10. Between 1995 and 2003 the applicant complained on numerous occasions to different State bodies about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 October 1995.", "11. On 11 March 2003, after the present case was communicated to the Government, the judgment of 6 October 1995 was enforced.", "12. In 1996 the applicant lodged with the Ialoveni District Court a civil action against the Costeşti Municipal Council and a private agricultural enterprise.", "13. On 16 September 1996, the Ialoveni District Court allowed the action in part and awarded the applicant MDL 20,960.", "14. On 26 February 1998 the Chişinău Regional Court rejected the Costeşti Local Council’s appeal for failure to pay the court fees. The judgment of 16 September 1996 became final.", "15. In 1998, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law in which she argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient.", "16. On 18 August 1998, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment of 16 September 1996.", "17. On an unspecified date in 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments of 16 September 1996, 26 February 1998 and 18 August 1998.", "18. On 17 May 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the Prosecutor General’s appeal, quashed the judgments of 16 September 1996, 26 February 1998 and 18 August 1998 and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings.", "19. The re-opened proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Ialoveni District Court of 2 December 2002 by which the applicant’s application was struck out of the list of cases for failure to appear before the court." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The first applicant, Terem Ltd, is a Ukrainian company registered in 1998. The second applicant, Mr Igor Vladimirovich Chechetkin is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Kiev. The third applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Vitalyevich Olius, is also a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Kiev. The second and third applicants are co-owners of the first applicant.", "5. In November 1999 the property and financial documents belonging to the first applicant were seized by the tax police during a control of the company’s compliance with tax regulations.", "6. On 10 February 2000 a major part of the first applicant’s property was declared to be “without an owner” by the Kiev Tax Police Department (hereinafter – “the KTPD”). On 3 March 2000 the Zhovtnevyy District State Administration decided to sell the property, which it then did.", "7. In May 2000 the second and third applicants lodged a complaint with the Radyanskiy District Court of Kiev against the KTPD for its allegedly unlawful actions with respect to the first applicant.", "8. On 10 October 2000 the court found for the applicants.", "9. On 7 February 2001 the Kiev City Court quashed the decision of the first-instance court and terminated the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, having established that the proper claimant in the case was the first applicant, which meant that the claim had to be considered by the commercial courts.", "10. In March 2002 the first applicant, represented by the other two, filed a claim with the Kiev Commercial Court against the KTPD and the State Treasury, seeking compensation for material and moral damage caused by the actions of the tax police.", "11. On 6 June 2003 the court found in part for the first applicant and awarded it UAH 5,655,475.40 in compensation for material and non-material damage and UAH 4,002.60 for the court fees[1]. In its decision the court established the unlawfulness of the actions of the KTPD and the resulting damage caused to the first applicant.", "12. On 6 October 2003 the Kiev Appellate Commercial Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court.", "13. On 22 October 2003 the Kiev Commercial Court issued two writs of execution for the amounts awarded in the decision of 6 June 2003.", "14. On 10 December 2003 the Shevchenkivskiy District Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings in the case.", "15. On 17 January 2004 the State Treasury informed the Bailiffs’ Service that, pursuant to domestic law, it was for the Treasury to enforce the judgment, not the Bailiffs’ Service.", "16. On 23 February 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the writs of execution to the first applicant and proposed that it submit them to the State Treasury for enforcement.", "17. On 25 February 2004 the first applicant forwarded the writs of execution to the State Treasury.", "18. On 5 April 2004 the Highest Commercial Court of Ukraine upheld the decisions of the lower courts of 6 June and 6 October 2003.", "19. On 1 July 2004 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the request of the KTPD for a review of the decision of 5 April 2004 in cassation.", "20. By letter of 22 July 2004, the Kiev Department of the State Treasury informed the applicants that the decision of 6 June 2003 could not be enforced in the absence of legal grounds. In particular, it noted that the reimbursement of the value of the property confiscated by the State was limited to the sum obtained from the sale of the property, a matter to be confirmed by the tax authorities.", "21. On 5 August 2004 the Kiev Commercial Court rejected the request of the KTPD to suspend the enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2003.", "22. On 9 September 2004 the judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected a further request of the KTPD for a review of the decision of 5 April 2004, on the ground that the Supreme Court had rejected this request in its final decision of 1 July 2004.", "23. On 20 December 2004 the State Treasury transferred UAH 356,973.55[2] to the bank account of the first applicant.", "24. By letter of 16 February 2005, the Kiev Department of the State Treasury informed the first applicant that the Treasury had transferred to it the amount obtained from the sale of the confiscated property. Further enforcement, however, could not be conducted due to the lack of appropriate allocations in the State Budget of Ukraine for the years 2004 and 2005.", "25. The judgment in favour of the first applicant remains to large extent unenforced." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "9. The applicant was born in 1938 and currently lives in Lancashire.", "10. In 1953 he joined the British army at 15 years of age. He served with the Royal Engineers between February 1954 and April 1968, when he was discharged for reasons unrelated to the present application.\nIn 1981 he was diagnosed as suffering from hypertension and late onset bronchial asthma and in 1989 he was found to have high blood pressure and chronic obstructive airways disease (bronchitis – COAD). He has not worked since 1992 or thereabouts and is registered as an invalid.", "11. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down (“Porton Down”) was established during the First World War in order to conduct research into chemical weapons with a view to advancing the protection of the United Kingdom's armed forces against such weapons. The research included tests of gases on humans as well as on animals. Servicemen who participated in the tests were paid extra wages.", "12. The applicant participated in such tests at Porton Down. While there was some debate as to whether he attended in 1962, it was not disputed that he did so in July 1963. His service medical records contained no record of any tests at Porton Down.", "13. The applicant alleged as follows. In the spring of 1962 he was invited to Porton Down; he was medically examined on arrival; he was asked on three or four occasions to enter a sealed and unventilated room, where he was seated and strapped to a chair; over a period of about six hours, drops of mustard gas were applied to patches of tissue which were then taped to his skin; he was told that, if he was unlucky, he might suffer temporary pain or discomfort but otherwise he was not given any, or any proper, warning about the possible consequences of the tests for his health; once the tests were finished he returned to his unit; there was no further medical examination after he left Porton Down. He relied on a memorandum and file note of 13 November 1989 (see paragraph 24 below) and on the conclusions in this respect of 14 January 2004 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal (“the PAT” – see paragraph 63 below) to substantiate his participation in tests in 1962.", "14. While the Government did not deny that participation, they pointed to a number of matters that appeared to militate against such a conclusion: the summary and alphabetical record books did not refer to his attendance in 1962 but only to his attendance in 1963; there was no documentary evidence at all of the 1962 tests whereas certain records existed of his 1963 tests; and if the PAT had accepted his participation in the 1962 tests, this was based solely on his recollections.", "15. The nerve gas (known as “G-agent” or “GF”) test is described in the relevant records as “exposure to single-breath GF”. The applicant alleged that he was told before the test that the experiment “could not harm a mouse”; that he was placed in an air-tight, glass-partitioned cubicle containing a face mask, the mask was placed over his mouth and nose, the fitting was checked and the chamber was sealed; that a loudspeaker informed him that the test was about to begin and to inhale normally; that he felt an immediate tightening of the chest muscles and lungs which wore off after the end of the test; and that blood samples were taken at regular intervals during the following twenty-four hours. The Government submitted that diluted GF vapours were put into a gas chamber and, as the name of the test suggested, volunteers took a single breath of air with calculated doses of GF gas through a tube connected to that chamber, they held their breath for two seconds and then exhaled.", "16. The other test involved mustard gas and was described in the records as “H sensitivity and penetration”. According to the applicant, it followed the same format as that in 1962.\nThe Government added the following detail: the mustard gas test was designed to test the performance of protective clothing and was carried out in two parts. The first was a sensitivity test to determine an individual's sensitivity to mustard gas and it involved the placement of a dilute solution of the gas on the participant's upper arm. If after twenty-four hours the test subject had a small red mark, he or she was deemed too sensitive and did not participate any further in the tests. On the other hand, if the participant was not demonstrably sensitive, the second part consisted of putting a drop of dilute mustard gas solution on three samples of protective clothing left in place on the participant's body and the skin under the clothing was examined after six and then twenty-four hours. The participants were monitored before and after the tests. The rooms were properly ventilated, the dosages were small and safe and the tests were carefully planned and controlled.", "17. From 1981 the applicant was medically treated for breathlessness and high blood pressure and by 1987 these problems had significantly worsened. He began to search for his Porton Down records through what he described as “medical” and “political” channels.", "18. In response to his doctor's enquiry, in late 1987 the Ministry of Defence (MOD) supplied his doctor with his service medical records on a “medical in confidence” basis. Those records did not refer to the applicant's Porton Down tests.", "19. In a letter of 14 November 1989, Porton Down responded to another enquiry from his doctor. The letter was sent on a “medical in confidence” basis and confirmed the applicant's participation in a GF gas test in July 1963. That GF test had been preceded and succeeded by a full medical examination which revealed no abnormality. The letter also referred (inaccurately, as it later emerged – see paragraph 36 below) to seven blood tests conducted after the GF test and to their results and confirmed that “peak flow meter measurements” had also been taken from the applicant and that “breath-holding tests”, a clothing penetration study (apparently, although not expressly noted, the mustard gas tests) and a battery of personality tests were performed. The results of these tests were not included in the letter and no other records supporting the statements made in the letter were enclosed. His doctor's stamp on it indicates that he decided to tell the applicant that all was normal. The applicant persuaded his doctor to show him the letter in 1994.", "20. By a letter dated 14 December 1989, a consultant informed the applicant's doctor that he doubted that the applicant's bronchial asthma was caused by his exposure to nerve gas. Further tests were to be carried out.", "21. A letter from Dr H. (a professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Leeds and later the court-appointed expert witness in the PAT proceedings – see paragraphs 42-68 below) dated 5 December 1994 to the applicant stated that full and detailed records were required to judge the long-term effects of his participation in the tests and that a long-term epidemiological study would have been useful either to establish that there were long-term effects or to reassure test participants that there were none. His letter of 10 July 1996 repeated his view as to the need for such a study.", "22. An internal Porton Down memorandum of 24 November 1997 noted that certain blood-test figures given in the letter to the applicant's doctor of 14 November 1989 were inaccurate. In addition, it was considered that the applicant's description of the tests was roughly consistent with the procedures in the 1960s. While there were no obvious gaps in the 1960s records, it could not be said that the records were complete: the applicant could have attended in 1962 and his name could have been omitted or incorrectly recorded due to a clerical error.", "23. Inter alia, the applicant carried out a sit-in hunger strike at Porton Down, held a press conference in the House of Commons and requested members of parliament to put parliamentary questions.", "24. Between 11 and 14 November 1989, the applicant went on hunger strike outside Porton Down. On 13 November 1989 he spoke with the Secretary of Porton Down. The latter noted in a memorandum of that date that the applicant's description of the tests was strong enough to indicate that he had been there and he recommended a further search of the records. He also recorded in a file note (of the same date) that the applicant's description of his visits to Porton Down in 1962 and 1963 left him with a level of confidence that he had been a volunteer there on both occasions. This led to the letter of 14 November 1989 to the applicant's doctor (see paragraph 19 above).", "25. In January 1994 the applicant formed the Porton Down Volunteers Association with the object of seeking recognition and redress for test participants. The association has over 300 members to date.", "26. By a letter dated 26 January 1994, the Chief Executive of Porton Down answered, at the request of the Secretary of State for Defence, a series of questions raised by a member of parliament about chemical and biological warfare testing. The Chief Executive's letter described the test procedure, stating that participants were given a medical examination before and after the tests and recalled for check-ups “from time to time”. It was pointed out that there was no evidence that the health of participants had deteriorated because of their test participation. On 22 June 1994 the Chief Executive confirmed the well-established policy of the MOD of releasing service medical records to a veteran's doctor on a “medical in confidence” basis. The Chief Executive's letter of 7 March 1995 (in response to a parliamentary question to the Minister of State for Defence) noted that the tests did not include any plan for long-term systematic monitoring of participants: any monitoring thereafter was purely ad hoc and sporadic.", "27. On 2 February 1994 the applicant wrote to the MOD requesting copies of his medical records and of reports on the relevant tests. The reply of 9 March 1994 from Porton Down recalled the MOD policy of release on a “medical in confidence” basis. The applicant's doctor had been provided with information in 1989 on this basis. It was “entirely up to your own doctor how much or how little of this information he conveys to you”. Further queries from the applicant led to a similar response from Porton Down by letter dated 20 April 1994.", "28. On 12 December 1994 Lord Henley stated in the House of Lords that the MOD would continue to send veterans to their doctors and would release medical records as appropriate. Information was provided to doctors to allow proper diagnosis and “would be released, if necessary”. He repeated that there was no evidence over the previous forty years that test participants had suffered harm to their health.", "29. In response to a series of parliamentary questions put to the Secretary of State for Defence as to the necessity for a public inquiry, the government's representative replied on 28 February 1995 that there was no evidence that any test participants had suffered any long-term damage to their health in the past four decades. Similar responses as to the lack of evidence of harm to the test participants were given by the Minister of State for Defence in Parliament on 4 April and 2 May 1995 in response to questions concerning the instigation of a study into the long-term health effects of exposure to chemical and biological substances.", "30. On 25 April 1995 the applicant and the Labour Party defence spokesman took part in a press conference on the question of Porton Down volunteers and their requirements.", "31. Following a meeting between them, on 2 December 1997 the Minister of State for Defence wrote to the applicant. He referred to the concerns of the applicant (and other test participants) that information about the tests was being withheld. He confirmed that this was not the case but rather reflected “less than thorough” record-keeping than would be currently expected. Henceforth all volunteers would be able to obtain access to all the information held on them at Porton Down and steps would be taken to declassify reports so as to make that information more accessible.\nCertain copies of test documents were enclosed: (a) the alphabetical record book which recorded the applicant's attendance at Porton Down between 13 and 19 July 1963; (b) the summary record book which referred to the two tests carried out on the applicant involving GF and mustard gas and listed the monitoring procedures that were to be carried out on the applicant (chest X-rays, peak flow meter tests, “x 3 x alcohol” quiz, breath-holding tests and blood tests); and (c) a report entitled “Effects of Inhaled GF on Man” which described the single breath GF test and contained an analysis of the results of the tests carried out on fifty-six participants, believed to include the applicant's test. It was indicated that these documents were available to any test participant who requested them.\nThis was the first material obtained by the applicant about his participation in the tests.\nThe letter went on to note that much GF-related research work had already been published in open literature or was in the Public Record Office. The review of files to be disclosed would continue and the applicant was given a list of all relevant research papers already published between 1957 and 1987. There was no evidence to date to suggest that any volunteer had suffered long-term adverse effects. A full independent and long-term study of the health impacts of test participation was not, however, considered feasible or practical so none had been or would be carried out.", "32. In a letter dated 31 August 1999 to the PAT, Porton Down indicated that it was well acquainted with the applicant, having received numerous communications from him and from members of parliament.", "33. By a letter dated 3 May 2001, Porton Down informed the applicant that it had discovered some old laboratory notebooks that included information about the 1963 tests: one book included some previously unavailable details of the mustard patch tests. A pre-exposure chest X-ray and the associated report card were also now available. The applicant was to contact Porton Down if he wanted to see this material or obtain copies.", "34. As well as those disclosed with the Minister of State's letter of 2 December 1997, the following documents were also submitted to the Court.", "35. The Government indicated that these were all the relevant records that could be traced: (a) an extract from a laboratory record of results of personality and intelligence tests; (b) extracts from laboratory records of GF blood tests – seven blood samples were taken from the applicant; and (c) an explanation of the GF blood-test results.", "36. The Government corrected their previous explanations of the seven blood samples (see paragraph 19 above): one was taken on 13 July 1963, a second one prior to the applicant's exposure to GF and the remaining five were taken later. They also corrected other errors relating to information provided in their earlier observations about those tests including the following: “the reference to '25 milligrams of GF [vapour per kilogram of body weight]' appears to have been a typographical error. In fact, calculated doses of GF ranged from 0.16 to 2.84 microgrammes per kilogramme of body weight.” They also disclosed documents recently discovered following a further search: (a) the applicant's pre-exposure X-ray and its associated report card (see paragraph 33 above); (b) a report dated August 1942 which described the manner in which the sensitivity tests to mustard gas were performed and entitled “Technique of the Physiological Experiments Carried Out on the Human Subjects at [Porton Down]”; and (c) extracts from a laboratory notebook entitled “Overgarment Tests. Mustard on Men”, relating to mid-July 1963 and referring to the applicant.", "37. On 10 June 1991 the applicant claimed a service pension on the grounds of “hypertension/breathing problems” resulting from the Porton Down tests (and, in addition, from his radiation exposure on Christmas Island during the relevant nuclear tests there). The Department of Social Security (DSS) obtained copies of his service and civilian medical records together with a report from his doctor, which confirmed that he suffered from hypertension, COAD and late onset bronchial asthma. On 28 January 1992 the Secretary of State rejected his claim for a service pension as there was no causal link demonstrated between the tests and those medical conditions. The applicant did not pursue an appeal at that stage.", "38. The applicant consulted solicitors in 1994 and obtained legal aid for proceedings. By a letter dated 14 November 1994 to the Secretary of State, his solicitors threatened proceedings, alleging, inter alia, negligence, assault and breach of statutory duty on the part of the MOD, and demanding the release of all medical and laboratory records in the possession of the Secretary of State or of Porton Down as regards the test periods in 1962 and 1963, failing which the applicant would apply to the High Court for pre-action discovery. The applicant's representatives met with MOD representatives in early January 1995 on a “without prejudice” basis and by a letter dated 5 June 1995 requested confirmation from the MOD as to whether a certificate would be issued under section 10 of the 1947 Act (“a section 10 certificate”).", "39. By a letter dated 4 July 1995 to the applicant's solicitors, the claims section of the MOD wrote as follows:\n“War Pensions Agency has informed me that a section 10 certificate in respect of acute bronchitis (1963), a bruised knee and loss of hearing will be regarded as attributable to service and a section 10 certificate will be issued. The other ailments for which [the applicant] claimed a war pension have not been regarded as attributable to service.”", "40. On 3 August 1995 a section 10 certificate was signed by the Secretary of State:\n“In so far as the personal injury of [the applicant] is due to anything suffered as a result of his service in the Army between 16 February 1954 and 2 April 1968, I hereby certify that his suffering that thing has been treated as attributable to service for the purpose of entitlement to an award under the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, which relates to disablement or death of members of the Army.”", "41. By a letter dated 8 August 1995, the Treasury Solicitor provided a copy of the section 10 certificate to the applicant's representatives.", "42. Following the judgment of this Court in McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III) and the Government's disclosure of certain documents in their observations in the present case (on 9 March 1998), the applicant requested an adjournment of the present application in order to pursue an appeal to the PAT and, in particular, disclosure of documents under Rule 6 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (England and Wales) Rules 1980 (“the PAT Rules”). The present application was adjourned.", "43. On 1 June 1998 he lodged his PAT appeal. Since the War Pensions Agency (“the WPA” – a specialised agency of the Department of Social Security) clarified that a further form was required, on 8 November 1998 the applicant re-lodged the appeal.", "44. In February 1999 the applicant received his “Statement of Case”. He obtained two extensions of the time-limit for the submission of his “answer” to the Statement of Case (to take advice from an expert chemical pathologist on the documents already disclosed and on those which were also to be requested during the PAT appeal and to consider the intervening observations of the Government in the present application) and he indicated that he would be making an application under Rule 6(1) of the PAT Rules.", "45. On 30 July 1999 his answer was submitted to the WPA along with a letter which noted that the answer included an application for disclosure of documents under Rule 6(1) of the PAT Rules: paragraph 18 of the answer set out a list of seventeen categories of document required by him under that rule.", "46. On 10 August 1999 the WPA responded by pointing out that enquiries were being made to obtain all the information requested under Rule 6(1) of the PAT Rules. Once received, the WPA would ask for the agreement of the President of the PAT to disclose it.", "47. On the same day the WPA wrote to Porton Down enclosing a copy of the applicant's Rule 6 request and asking for the information as soon as possible so that the agreement of the President of the PAT could be obtained.", "48. On 14 March and 13 April 2000 the WPA sent the supplementary Statement of Case (now incorporating the supplemental medical evidence) to the applicant and to the PAT, respectively.", "49. On 3 August 2000 the President of the PAT responded to the applicant's enquiry, indicating that his case had not been listed as it awaited production of further documentary evidence and the Secretary of State's response. However, since the Rule 6 request should not have been made in the applicant's answer to the Statement of Case, that request had just come to light. The applicant was to confirm to the President if he intended paragraph 18 of his answer to constitute his Rule 6 request and, if so, the President would be grateful to receive any observations that would assist his consideration of the relevance of the documents to the appeal issues. The applicant was also to identify the State department to which a Rule 6 direction should be addressed.", "50. On 9 November 2000 the applicant confirmed to the President of the PAT that paragraph 18 of his answer did indeed constitute his Rule 6 request and he made detailed submissions on the matters requested by the President.", "51. By a letter dated 13 November 2000, the President of the PAT requested the applicant to submit a draft direction and attend a hearing on it since he was concerned that the wording of some parts of the Rule 6 request appeared to be ambiguous and lacking in clarity. The applicant submitted a draft direction (essentially listing those documents already included in paragraph 18 of his answer).", "52. By an order dated 1 February 2001, the President of the PAT directed, pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the PAT Rules, disclosure of the scheduled documents by the Secretary of State since the documents “were likely to be relevant to the issues to be determined in the appeal”.", "53. On 6 July 2001 the Secretary of State responded to the direction of the President of the PAT. It was marked “medical in confidence”. It referred to the documents already submitted by the Government to this Court (see paragraphs 34-36 above). The Secretary of State was unable to give a definitive response to the request for the fifth category of document required (namely, “any scientific or medical reports, whether published or prepared for internal use by Porton Down, the [MOD] or other government departments or agencies of the volunteer studies or experiments in Porton Down between 1957 and 1968 which were similar or related to the studies or experiments in which [the applicant] was involved”). A full and careful review had been undertaken and was a time-consuming process. Many of the documents identified as being possibly relevant to the request were classified. The Secretary of State had asked for an urgent review of the classification to be undertaken and, once the review was completed, he would let the PAT have his full response. Otherwise the Secretary of State provided various explanations of the documents already submitted by the Government to this Court and details of the precise dates on which the applicant would have participated in the tests, of the levels of exposure to gases and of various headings and abbreviations in the disclosed documents. The only documents (additional to those already submitted to this Court) disclosed to the PAT were the applicant's service and payment records, the latter of which included a payment for attendance for a week at Porton Down in July 1963.", "54. The MOD's letter was passed to the applicant on 25 July 2001. By a letter dated 19 July 2002, the applicant wrote to the PAT apologising for not having responded and explaining the reasons for the delay.", "55. By a letter dated 23 August 2002, the MOD disclosed documents concerning the above-described fifth category: two reports entitled “The feasibility of performing follow-up studies of the health of volunteers attending [Porton Down]” and “The single-breath administration of Sarin”, from which individual names had been blanked out. The feasibility report acknowledged that the records held at Porton Down prior to the late 1970s generally consisted of the name, service number and age of participants at the date of testing but were not “sufficient to allow either a comprehensive morbidity study or mortality study to proceed”. While a study could be carried out on post-1976 test participants, “such a study would be of very limited value and may only serve to draw attention to [Porton Down's] interest in possible long-term health problems experienced by volunteers”. The feasibility report concluded that a comprehensive follow-up study of all volunteers was “impractical”. Porton Down's library catalogue had also mentioned a document entitled “Unique papers relating to early exposure of volunteers to GD [O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonoflouidate, commonly known as Soman] and GF and DM [diphenylaminearsine chloride, commonly known as Adamsite]”. However, a copy of this document could not be located. A letter of 20 August 2002 was also enclosed which certified that nine of the requested documents were “in the nature of departmental minutes or records” and would not therefore be disclosed (Rule 6(1) of the PAT Rules).", "56. A hearing was fixed for 3 October 2002. On 27 September 2002 the applicant was obliged to request an adjournment since his counsel had advised that further questions needed to be put to Dr H. On 30 September 2002 the PAT declined to adjourn, indicating that it was unlikely Dr H. could or would prepare a report.", "57. On 2 October 2002 the MOD wrote to the PAT and the applicant. While nine documents had been previously certified as non-disclosable, (letter of 23 August 2002 – see paragraph 55 above), seven of those nine documents could now be disclosed. The MOD had “had the opportunity of re-examining the documents ... with a view to assessing whether [they] could be the subject of voluntary disclosure ... in an effort to ensure that everything that can be disclosed has been disclosed and so as to ensure the maximum openness and the maximum assistance to the [PAT]”. Certain blocking out had been done on some disclosed documents to protect the identities of staff involved and to excise irrelevant material. Two documents could still not be disclosed: the first did not appear “to contain anything of relevance” to the applicant's tests and, in any event, “contained information which remains security sensitive and is not properly subject to voluntary disclosure on security grounds”; and the second required permission from the United States before it could be disclosed.", "58. The appeal was scheduled for 3 October 2002. The applicant applied for an adjournment supported by the Veterans Agency (the successor of the WPA – “the VA”). The PAT decision (delivered on 7 October 2002) recorded as follows:\n“The [PAT] are deeply disturbed that this application has proved necessary as a result of the [applicant's] advisers' failure to consider documents disclosed over a year ago, in a timely fashion.\nHowever, since the [VA] also appear to be without documentation and there is confusion by the [applicant] as to whether he also wishes to appeal for hypertension, we have reluctantly decided to allow the adjournment.\nIt is highly unsatisfactory that Court resources have been wasted in this way. To prevent this happening in the future the Tribunal intend to exercise some control over the ongoing progress of the appeal.”\nThe PAT was to clarify with the MOD the status of certain classified documents and the extent to which they could be released to the public, and directed the MOD to provide, by 21 October 2002, disclosure of further documents. The MOD, the VA and the applicant were to notify the PAT by 18 November 2002 of the questions and documents it wanted Dr H. to examine. It was intended that the PAT would add its own questions and submit a composite questionnaire to Dr H. who would report in response to the PAT. The applicant was also to confirm his position as regards the hypertension appeal by 28 October 2002.", "59. On 21 October 2002, the MOD disclosed to the PAT three declassified documents. These were forwarded by the PAT to the applicant by a letter dated 8 November 2002, accompanied by a warning that the MOD had released the documents for the purpose of the appeal and that no information in them was to be used for any other purpose without the consent of the MOD. By a letter dated 25 October 2002, the applicant confirmed that his appeal had been intended to cover hypertension also, he explained the reasons for his confusion and he requested an extension of time to so appeal. A hypertension appeal form was lodged with the PAT on 5 December 2002.", "60. By a letter dated 3 December 2002, the PAT wrote to Dr H. enclosing the documents disclosed by the MOD (at that point) with two sets of questions (prepared by the applicant and the medical member of the PAT). By a letter dated 19 February 2003, Dr H. provided the PAT with a report. The applicant having noted that Dr H. had omitted to respond to the PAT questions, Dr H. did so in a supplemental report sent to the PAT under cover of a letter dated 14 May 2003.", "61. In a document dated 14 October 2003, the MOD submitted its comments on Dr H.'s reports. On 16 October 2003 the VA submitted a supplementary Statement of Case.", "62. The PAT appeal hearing took place on 23 October 2003. It allowed the hypertension appeal to be heard out of time but, once it became clear that the VA had not processed the appeal documentation filed by the applicant, the PAT reluctantly granted the MOD an adjournment to allow the VA time to “properly consider all the evidential material and prepare a reasoned medical opinion”. The COAD appeal was, however, dismissed.", "63. On 14 January 2004 the PAT delivered its written decision. As to the facts, the PAT accepted that the applicant had undergone tests for mustard gas “some time in 1962 as well as the documented tests in July 1963” despite the fact that there was no reference in his service records or in other research records to the 1962 test. The PAT also found “disquieting” the “difficulties” experienced by the applicant in obtaining the records which were produced to the PAT. The PAT also established the following facts:\n“1. We find that [the applicant] suffered no long-term respiratory effect from skin contact with mustard gas following both tests in 1962 and 1963. 2. We find that [the applicant] was administered only small doses of mustard gas and GF gas which would have resulted in minimal exposure to mustard gas by off-gassing and a limited and transitory reaction to the GF gas. Although no records relating to doses exist, the mustard gas tests were designed to test the suitability of military clothing to exposure and were not a gas test per se. Furthermore, after a fatality at Porton Down in 1953, safeguards were put in place to ensure that volunteers were only exposed to safe dosages. 3. The compelling weight of the evidence is that [the applicant] did not receive, in any of the tests, dosages likely to have long-term effects as described in the research papers. In particular, the [PAT expert], although accepting the possibility that given further research through a long-term follow-up study a link might be found, concludes that there is no evidence to link [the applicant's] exposure to either gases with his present condition. We accept [the PAT expert's] conclusion that, given the limited doses and [the applicant's] minimal immediate reactions, this would rule out a link between the tests and the claimed conditions. 4. We particularly rely on [Dr H.'s] expert report. He has analysed the specific data relevant to [the applicant's] case and considered the conditions for which he is claiming in relation to that specific data. The research papers relied on by the [applicant], although of some evidential value, are very general and speculative. We therefore prefer the evidence, and the conclusions reached by [Dr H.] in his reports.”\nThe PAT also accepted, as a matter of law, that it was sufficient to show that the proved service event was only one of the causes of the condition even if there were other contributory factors. However, it stated:\n“2. We do not accept that the lack of possible evidence of other follow-up tests is sufficient to constitute reliable evidence. 3. We find that there is some reliable evidence surrounding the Porton Down tests for which [the applicant] volunteered. However, this evidence tends, if anything, to support the view that there is in fact no link between those tests and [the applicant's] current conditions. The test of reasonable doubt is not therefore met. 4. There is no reliable evidence to suggest a causal link between the tests for either mustard gas or GF gas and the claimed condition. 5. [The PAT expert's] views that 'he cannot exclude the possibility' of a link between exposure to GF and/or mustard gas and the claimed condition, does not meet the 'reasonable doubt' test. Furthermore, he 'rules out' exposure to GF as a cause and deems it 'unlikely' that mustard gas is a cause. 6. Finally, [the applicant's counsel] invites us to allow the appeal for reasons which can be summarised as 'general fairness'. The [PAT] does not have legislative or discretionary power to do so. The decision of the [PAT] is to disallow the appeal for [COAD].”", "64. On 4 February 2004 the applicant applied to the PAT for leave to appeal to the High Court (on the COAD matter) and for a stay of the hypertension appeal then pending before the PAT. On 26 April 2004 leave was refused, the PAT's reserved decision being delivered on 28 April 2004.", "65. On 11 May 2004 the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the High Court. On 13 July 2004 leave was granted.", "66. The applicant's appeal notice and supporting skeleton argument were submitted on 10 August 2004. The appeal was listed to be heard on 7 October 2004.", "67. On 8 October 2004 the High Court allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the PAT for a further hearing.", "68. On 7 March 2005 a directions hearing was held before the PAT. It ordered the hypertension and COAD appeals to be heard together and mutual disclosure of any further documents relevant to the appeal by 18 April 2005. On the latter date the Treasury Solicitor produced a “schedule of disclosure” listing and disclosing eleven documents: apart from three items, the applicant had not seen them before. The Treasury Solicitor maintained that disclosure of most of the documents (including two sets of minutes of meetings which Rule 6 specifies can be withheld) was not obligatory as they were of marginal relevance, noted that all documents had been downgraded to “unclassified” and indicated that the MOD would endeavour to produce the annexes referred to in certain documents.", "69. The armed forces have, since 1998, put in place a service to deal with enquiries from Porton Down test participants (“the 1998 Scheme”). The relevant information pamphlet noted that participants could request their test records, that a search would be carried out for references to that person and for additional evidence of actual procedures, that a summary would be provided and that, if the person wanted to go to Porton Down, he or she could obtain the actual records. While the pamphlet noted that reasonably comprehensive records had existed since 1942, individuals had to accept that old records in some cases were very sparse, that record keeping in years gone by was not up to current standards and that in certain cases a person's attendance might not even have been marked. The pamphlet claimed that no participant was worse off after the Porton Down tests.", "70. In 2001 the Porton Down Volunteers Medical Assessment Programme was established by the MOD to investigate health concerns of Porton Down test participants. The study involved 111 participants but no control group. The report, published in April 2004, was entitled “Clinical Findings in 111 Ex-Porton Down Volunteers”. It noted that over 20,000 had participated in the tests since Porton Down's establishment in 1916 and that 3,000 had participated in nerve gas tests and 6,000 in mustard gas tests, with some servicemen having been exposed to both. It concluded that:\n“On a clinical basis, no evidence was found to support the hypothesis that participation in Porton Down trials produced any long-term adverse health effects or unusual patterns of disease compared to those of the general population of the same age.”", "71. From July 2002 the MOD funded “an initial pilot research project” on mortality and cancer incidence among Porton Down test participants. It compared 500 participants with a control group of 500 other servicemen and the decision was taken that a full-scale epidemiological study should be undertaken. By mid-2003 this had begun and it was expected to take about two years to complete.", "72. Further to the death of Aircraftsman Maddison in May 1953 after being exposed to Sarin gas (also referred to as GB gas, a nerve agent related to GF), a coroner's inquest was held and recorded “death by misadventure”. An application was brought for a fresh inquest alleging, inter alia, that incomplete evidence had been brought before the coroner and in November 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered a fresh inquest. It concluded on 15 November 2004 with the jury finding that the cause of Mr Maddison's death was the “application of a nerve agent in a non-therapeutic experiment”. Judicial review proceedings appear to be pending.\nIn or around 2004-05 a non-governmental organisation (“Porton Down Veterans”) discovered during searches in the Public Record Office two letters of May and August 1953 containing legal advice from the Treasury Solicitor to the MOD about Mr Maddison's case and about section 10 of the 1947 Act. That organisation sent this material to the Veterans Policy Unit – Legacy Health Issues of the MOD on 7 February 2005. The Treasury Solicitor's letter of August 1953 noted as follows:\n“When the case was referred to me previously I did consider the relevance of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 but I came to the conclusion that it had no application. On the information before me I am still of that opinion. Subsection (1) of that section, which deals with injuries caused by acts of members of the Armed Forces, can have no application since the administration of the GB gas to ... Maddison was (so I understand) carried out by [civilian] personnel and not by any member of the Armed Forces. Subsection (2) also seems inapplicable. [It] provides that no proceedings in tort are to lie against the Crown for death or personal injury due to anything suffered by a member of the Armed Forces if that thing is suffered by him 'in consequence of the nature or condition of any equipment or supplies used for the purposes of the Armed Forces of the Crown'. As I understand the facts of this case, GB gas cannot be said to be a 'supply used for the purposes of the Armed Forces' at all, it being purely an experimental substance and one which has never been used for the purposes of the Armed Forces. If this is correct, then section 10 of the 1947 Act cannot protect the Crown or the Minister from liability.”" ]	[ 4 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Tambov.", "5. In the 1980s he took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. As of late 1998 the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection.", "6. On an unspecified date the applicant sued the Tambov Pension Authority (Управление социальной защиты населения мэрии города Тамбова, “the authority”) seeking to recover the amount of allegedly unpaid social benefits.", "7. By judgment of 19 June 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov (“the District Court”) examined and granted the applicant’s action and ordered the authority to pay him the arrears of RUR 10,890.73.", "8. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tambov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 4 September 2000. It came into force on the same date. Immediately thereafter the applicant obtained an execution writ and instituted enforcement proceedings.", "9. The amount due to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of 19 June 2000 and decision of 4 September 2000 was not paid to him until February 2004, which is three years and seven months after the entry of the judgment into force.", "10. In 2001 the applicant brought another action against the authority, claiming damages for non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 June 2000.", "11. On 14 March 2001 the District Court examined and granted the applicant’s claims. It ordered the authority to pay a half percent penalty fee for each day of the delay between September 2000 and March 2001, totalling at RUR 36,383.07. This judgment was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on 26 March 2001.", "12. Thereafter the applicant submitted an execution writ in respect of the judgment of 14 March 2001 to the bailiffs. By letter of 15 December 2002 the bailiffs returned the documents and invited him to submit them to a local branch of the Federal Treasury.", "13. Upon the authority’s request, on 19 June 2003 the District Court corrected an arithmetical mistake in the judgment of 14 March 2001 by replacing the amount of award of RUR 36,383.07 with RUR 25,492.32.", "14. The judgment of 14 March 2001, as corrected by the decision of 19 June 2003, was enforced in full in February 2004, which is two years and eleven months later after its entry into force.", "15. On 28 May 2002 the District Court examined and granted the applicant’s another claim for penalty, this time in connection with alleged non-enforcement of the judgment of 14 March 2001. The court ordered the authority to pay the applicant a half percent penalty fee for each day of the delay between April 2001 and May 2002, totalling at RUR 20,858.98.", "16. The judgment of 28 May 2002 was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on 13 June 2002.", "17. By letter of 10 December 2002 the authority informed the applicant of receipt in June 2002 of an execution writ in respect of the judgment of 28 May 2002. The authority refused to pay the money due as the federal budget had allocated funds only as regards court decisions which had came into force prior to 1 January 2002. By the same letter the authority returned the writ and supporting documents to the applicant.", "18. Thereafter the applicant twice submitted the writ to the bailiffs’ service which, by letter of 18 February and 4 March 2003, returned the documents and informed him that the documents ought to be submitted directly to the local branch of the Federal Treasury.", "19. On an unspecified date the authority brought an application seeking supervisory review of the judgment of 28 May 2002. A judge of the Regional Court on 17 June 2003 examined the application and decided to forward it for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Regional Court.", "20. By letter of 17 June 2003 the Regional Court notified the applicant of the supervisory review hearing of 26 June 2003.", "21. On 26 June 2003 Regional Court quashed the judgment of 28 May 2002 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a fresh examination at the first instance. It appears that the applicant was absent from the hearing.", "22. By letter of 30 June 2003 the Regional Court informed the applicant of the outcome of the supervisory review hearing of 26 June 2003.", "23. According to the Government, on 16 July 2003 the first instance court discontinued the proceedings in the case for the applicant’s failure to appear.", "24. By default judgment of 3 July 2003 which came into force on 14 July 2003 the District Court ordered the authority to compensate the applicant for inflation losses in connection with the delays in enforcement of the judgment of 19 June 2000. The award of RUR 5,892.03 was to cover the period between September 2000 and June 2003.", "25. It was paid to the applicant in full six months later, in February 2004.", "26. On 12 February 2004 the applicant brought another action against the authority, claiming inflation compensation for the delay between 1 April 2001 and 31 December 2003 in enforcement of the judgment of 14 March 2001.", "27. By decision of 26 February 2004 the District Court granted his claims and awarded the applicant RUR 10,944.36 as a compensation for the inflation losses sustained by the applicant as a result of the said delay.", "28. This decision came into force on 9 March 2004. It is not clear from the case-file whether this judgment has been enforced." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicants, Temer Tanrıkolu, İbrahim Bağdu, M. Emin Tanrıkolu, Mehmet Tayşun, A. Menaf Akyol, M. Emin Tayşun, Lokman Akyol, Hamo Tayşun, Ramazan Atak, Hıdır Şengil, Methi Tayşun, Abdurrahman Mungan, M. Sait Çek, Faruk Dilek, Ramazan Tanrıkolu, Hasan Arsu and Abdulaziz Arsu, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1977, 1948, 1960, 1956, 1950, 1953, 1971, 1950, 1960, 1977, 1973, 1975, 1964, 1974, 1975, 1949 and 1973 respectively. They all live in Silopi in south-east Turkey.", "5. Between November 1992 and February 1993 the applicants were taken into police custody in Silopi by policemen on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the PKK.", "6. At the end of their police custody, the applicants were brought before the Şırnak Magistrate's Court in Criminal Matters and were subsequently placed in detention on remand.", "7. On an unspecified date in 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment. He accused the applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, and called for them to be sentenced pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code.", "8. The applicants were all released pending trial.", "9. On 6 February 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment, ranging between two years and six months and three years and nine months.", "10. On 9 June 1997 the Court of Cassation, upholding the Diyarbakır State Security Court's reasoning and assessment of evidence, dismissed the applicants' request for appeal." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "5. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara.", "6. The applicant was arrested in Antalya on 21 November 1995 by the police officers from the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the Antalya Security Directorate, on suspicion of being a member of the PKK. She was kept in police custody until 29 November 1995.", "7. In the evening of 29 November 1995, right after her release from police custody, the applicant went to a private hospital to be treated. According to the medical reports dated 30 November 1995 and 1 December 1995, drafted by the doctors who were involved in her treatment, the applicant stayed in the hospital for three days as she was suffering from hyper-tension. Moreover, it was also noted that she was diagnosed with neurotic anxiety. It was suggested for her to rest for three more days.", "8. On 25 December 1995 the İzmir Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court dropped the charges against the applicant, on the ground of lack of evidence.", "9. On 13 February 1996, invoking Articles 1 § 6 and 2 § 1 of the Law No. 466, the applicant brought an action before the Antalya Assize Court against the Treasury, requesting compensation for her unlawful arrest and detention which lasted eight days. She claimed 500,000,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) to compensate for her non-pecuniary damages and 11.820,000 TRL for her hospital expenses.", "10. On 19 July 1996, after consulting the written opinion of the Public Prosecutor, the Antalya Assize Court held that the applicant be awarded compensation for her hospital expenses and 30,000,000 TRL for her non-pecuniary damages, calculated on the basis of her personal, financial and social status.", "11. The applicant and the treasury both appealed against the award. The applicant contended on appeal that the amount of compensation was insufficient for her wrongful arrest and detention. The Treasury considered that the amount awarded was excessive.", "12. On 19 March 1997 the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted his opinion on the merits of both parties' appeals. He advised the court to quash the first-instance judgment. He held that the expenses incurred in a private hospital should not be reimbursed. Moreover, in view of the relevant case law, he considered the compensation awarded for non-pecuniary damages to be excessive.", "13. On 27 May 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on the ground that the Assize Court rendered its decision without first establishing whether the applicant's hyper-tension was caused by her detention in police custody.", "14. On 4 July 1997 the court decided to obtain medical opinion concerning the cause of applicant's illness. Moreover, the Public Prosecutor was asked for his written observations on the applicant's claim.", "15. Two medical reports, dated 27 October 1997 and 3 December 1997 and drafted by the doctors who treated the applicant, were submitted with the Antalya Assize Court. They confirmed the fact that the applicant was hospitalised in November 1995 for three days and that she was diagnosed with hyper-tension and neurotic anxiety which were aggravated due to the detention conditions.", "16. On 13 January 1998 the court questioned the two doctors who were responsible for the applicant's treatment. The doctors confirmed that both the hyper-tension and the neurotic anxiety were health problems of which the applicant must have suffered well before her detention period. However, they also confirmed the aggravating effect of the detention conditions on these illnesses. The court requested the Forensic Department at the Ministry of Justice to examine the case file and submit its comments.", "17. On 27 April 1998 the third specialization committee of the Forensic Department concluded that they were unable to determine for certain whether the hyper-tension and the neurotic anxiety were the applicant's existing health problems prior to her detention in police custody. It therefore referred the case file to a different committee of the Forensic Department.", "18. According to the fourth specialization committee's report of 20 December 1999, which was submitted to the court on 27 March 2000, both the hyper-tension and the neurotic anxiety were not caused by detention conditions.", "19. On 8 June 2000, in view of the report dated 20 December 1999, the Antalya Assize Court held that the applicant be awarded only compensation for non-pecuniary damages. In light of the facts of the case and having considered the applicant's financial and social status, as well as the intensity of her emotional suffering, the court awarded the applicant 30,000,000 TRL by way of compensation for her non-pecuniary damages", "20. On 28 June 2000 the applicant appealed against the judgment, claiming that she must have been awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages together with the interest. She further requested the Court of Cassation to hold a hearing.", "21. In his written submissions of 30 November 2000 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation recommended to the court to dismiss the applicant's claims as well as her request for a hearing. It argued that the applicant's case did not concern a criminal issue which would require holding a hearing at the appeal level. The public prosecutor, nevertheless, advised the court to quash the decision of the Assize Court for procedural reasons.", "22. On 12 December 2000 the Court of Cassation followed the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor and quashed the decision of the Antalya Assize Court.", "23. On 2 January 2001 the case was resumed before the Antalya Assize Court. The Public Prosecutor advised the court to reject the applicant's claim for pecuniary damages and grant her compensation for her non‑pecuniary damages.", "24. On 30 May 2001 the Assize Court awarded the applicant 30,000,000 TRL of non-pecuniary damages together with interest.", "25. On 30 July 2001, reiterating her previous reasons, the applicant appealed against the judgment. On 28 November 2001 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation recommended to the court to uphold the decision of the criminal court.", "26. On 24 December 2001 the Court of Cassation, having regard, inter alia, to the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor, upheld the judgment of 30 May 2001.", "27. According to information submitted by the Government, the applicant never applied to obtain the compensation awarded to her by the Antalya Assize Court." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "8. UMO Ilinden – PIRIN was a political party founded on 28 February 1998 and based in south‑west Bulgaria (in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia). It was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on 29 February 2000 and as a result dissolved.", "9. Between 1990 and 1998 more than fifteen organisations of persons declaring to have Macedonian ethnic consciousness were formed and were active on the territory of Bulgaria. Apparently most of these never sought to be registered.", "10. One of them, the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (“UMO Ilinden”), was founded on 14 April 1990. Its aims, according to its articles of association and programme, were to “unite all Macedonians in Bulgaria on a regional and cultural basis” and to achieve “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. The same year it applied for, but was refused, registration. In their judgments of July and November 1990 and March 1991 the competent courts found that the association’s aims were directed against the unity of the nation, that it advocated national and ethnic hatred, and that it was dangerous for the territorial integrity of Bulgaria. The aims of the association included the “political development of Macedonia” and the “united, independent Macedonian State” (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, §§ 10‑14, ECHR 2001‑IX).", "11. UMO Ilinden made an additional attempt to register in 1998‑99 (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 59491/00, 9 September 2004). Registration was again refused.", "12. The applicant party was founded in the town of Gotze Delchev on 28 February 1998 by fifty‑one persons. Some of its founders had previously been members of UMO Ilinden. It applied for registration at the Sofia City Court.", "13. In the course of the proceedings the public prosecutor, who participated ex officio, maintained that the party’s aims were contrary to Article 44 § 2 of the Constitution and that registration should therefore be refused. In connection with these remarks the founders decided to amend one point of the party’s constitution. They did so at a meeting on 14 November 1998 and presented the amended copy to the court.", "14. By a judgment of 12 February 1999, a notice of which was published in the State Gazette on 23 February 1999, the Sofia City Court registered the applicant party, holding that its aims, as set out in its constitution and programme, were not contrary to the proscriptions of Article 44 § 2 of the Constitution and of section 3(2) of the Political Parties Act of 1990.", "15. On 4 March 1999 sixty‑one members of the Bulgarian parliament requested the Constitutional Court to declare the applicant party unconstitutional, more specifically, contrary to Articles 11 § 4 and 44 § 2 of the Constitution of 1991. They argued that the party had in fact been formed in 1990 and was a successor of the “illegal” UMO Ilinden. They further argued that the party’s ultimate aim was the formation of an independent Macedonian state through the secession of Pirin Macedonia from Bulgaria. The party’s members and leaders had on numerous occasions declared such goals. The party’s original constitution, amended in the course of the proceedings before the Sofia City Court, contained language to the effect that it would “protect the interests of the population of Pirin Macedonia [and] of the refugees from Aegean and Vardar Macedonia”. This indicated its separatist character. Also, the applicant party’s chairman, Mr Ivan Singartiyski (the second applicant), had sent letters to the state institutions and media of a neighbouring country, urging them to look for a “Macedonian minority” in Bulgaria. It was true that the party’s public influence was negligible, but its registration had created a dangerous precedent.", "16. On 9 March 1999 the Constitutional Court declared the request admissible and invited the applicant party, the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers, the Ministers of Internal Affairs and of Justice, the Prosecutor‑General, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and the Bulgarian Centre for Human Rights to submit written observations within thirty days.", "17. The second applicant, Mr Singartiyski, acting in his capacity of chairman of the applicant party, filed written observations in which he argued that UMO Ilinden – PIRIN was a democratic party and its activities were fully compliant with the Constitution and the laws of the country.", "18. In a joint memorial the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and the Bulgarian Centre for Human Rights argued against the applicant party’s dissolution. They pointed out that it had existed for only a short time and that it was therefore too early to judge whether its activities rendered it unconstitutional. The few public statements of its leaders and members could not lead to a firm conclusion in that respect. On the contrary, the applicant party had never questioned the country’s territorial integrity. A measure as radical as dissolution would be justified only if there was an immediate and direct threat to national security or public order, which was clearly not the case.", "19. A hearing was held on 25 November 1999 at which the Constitutional Court heard oral argument. At the hearing the Ministry of Internal Affairs presented as evidence a letter written by Mr Kiril Ivanov, former chairman of the applicant party, and sent by him on the party’s behalf to the Open Society Institute in Budapest. In the letter Mr Ivanov had stated that “Pirin Macedonia ha[d] to gain cultural, political and economic autonomy” and that “the human rights of Macedonians in Pirin Macedonia [stood] higher than Bulgaria’s national sovereignty”.", "20. That letter was discussed at a meeting of the National Executive Council of the applicant party held on 28 November 1999. The Council distanced itself from the letter and expressed the opinion that Mr Ivanov’s actions had been contrary to the party’s constitution and aims. The Council recommended that Mr Ivanov be expelled from the party. The applicant party informed the Constitutional Court of this resolution.", "21. The Constitutional Court gave judgment on 29 February 2000, declaring the applicant party unconstitutional (реш. № 1 от 29 февруари 2000 г. по конституционно дело № 3 от 1999 г., обн., ДВ брой 18 от 7 март 2000 г.).", "22. The court started by observing that the constitutionality of a party should mainly be assessed on the basis of its activity. It was not sufficient to make the assessment solely on the basis of the statements contained in its constitution and programme. The constitution of a party could be just a façade for facilitating its registration; this is why it was necessary to have regard to the party’s real activities. It could not be ruled out that the documents could conceal objectives, intentions and activities that were different from those which were publicly proclaimed. It was therefore necessary to compare their content with the party’s practical actions. The European Court of Human Rights had ruled on this issue in its judgment in the case of United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey (judgment of 30 January 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑I).", "23. The court went on to hold that although the applicant party had been registered in February 1999 on the basis of a constitution which had been adopted at a founding meeting on 28 February 1998, it was not a novel organisation. It had a predecessor and was continuing its activities. The court described the founding of UMO Ilinden in 1990 and its unsuccessful attempt to register in 1990‑91 (see paragraph 10 above). It further found that UMO Ilinden had split in 1994, the radicals remaining on one side and the more moderate members forming two separate organisations: UMO Ilinden – Democratic Action and UMO Ilinden – Blagoevgrad. Most of the applicant party’s current leaders, including Mr Ivan Singartiyski (the second applicant) and Mr Kiril Ivanov, had been members of these two organisations, which had merged and, after an unsuccessful attempt to register as an association at the Blagoevgrad Regional Court, had managed to register as a political party at the Sofia City Court. It could thus be concluded that the applicant party was not a novel organisation, but was closely connected with the former unregistered association UMO Ilinden. The two had almost the same name and the same persons were their leaders and members. Moreover, the second applicant and another leader of the applicant party had intimated in newspaper interviews that they considered the applicant party and UMO Ilinden as one and the same organisation. The court therefore concluded that the activities of the applicant party’s predecessor organisations should be taken into account for purpose of assessing its constitutionality.", "24. The court then turned to the specific grounds invoked by the sixty‑one members of parliament for declaring the applicant party unconstitutional.", "25. With regard to its alleged incompatibility with Article 11 § 4 of the Constitution, the court found that there was no Macedonian ethnos in Bulgaria. Therefore, it could not be said that the applicant party was based on ethnic origin. Moreover, it was clear from its constitution that every Bulgarian citizen could become its member. This part of the request was therefore unfounded.", "26. As to the other ground for declaring the applicant party unconstitutional, incompatibility with Article 44 § 2 of the Constitution, the court pointed to a number of specific instances in which members of the applicant party and its predecessor organisations had engaged in conduct prohibited under Article 44 § 2 of the Constitution:\n– A meeting on 20 April 1991 at the Rozhen Monastery. At this meeting a declaration had been adopted, demanding full cultural, economic and political autonomy of the Pirin region; withdrawal of the Bulgarian troops, referred to as “occupational”; dissolution of all Bulgarian political parties and organisations; the establishment of a Macedonian orthodox church independent of the Bulgarian orthodox church, etc.\n– A commemorative rally held on 1 August 1993 in the area Samuilova krepost. A brochure announcing the event had featured a map of Macedonia, which had included territories that are part of Bulgaria (the Pirin region) and Greece, and in the middle of the map there had been depicted the sixteen‑ray Macedonian star symbol[1].\n– In 1994 the newspaper Skornuvane, published by UMO Ilinden, had printed a map of Macedonia featuring territories belonging to Bulgaria and Greece.\n– On 2 August 1997 the faction of UMO Ilinden lead by Mr Kiril Ivanov had issued a memorandum according to which in Bulgaria there existed “modern-day genocide, discrimination and assimilation” and the Macedonians there were deprived of the right to honour the memory of the thousands of fighters who had fallen in the struggle for “free and independent Macedonia”. That memorandum had been circulated abroad.\n– Immediately after the applicant party’s founding, the newspaper New Macedonia in its issue of 21‑22 March 1998 had reprinted an interview of Mr Ivan Gargavelov, the party’s secretary, in which he had allegedly insulted the Bulgarian nation and had attacked representatives of the Bulgarian authorities. He had portrayed the Pirin region as part of Macedonia and had indicated that the unique folklore, culture, traditions and individuality of the Macedonian people had been destroyed, that its history and customs had been stolen, and that its national identity had been denied.\n– In February 1999 Mr Ivan Gargavelov had attended a press conference of the Conservative Party held in Skopje, as a representative of UMO Ilinden. When asked why he spoke Bulgarian, he had replied: “This is not Bulgarian, but Macedonian, and this is the language spoken in Bulgaria, whereas the Bulgarians there speak Tatar language”.\n– In an interview for the Macedonian Sun newspaper of 27 March 1998 the applicant party’s deputy‑chairman, Mr Anguel Bezev, had accused Bulgaria of genocide and lack of democracy, and had spoken of a “Pirin part of Macedonia”, as if of a non‑Bulgarian territory. He had obviously agreed with its secession from Bulgaria but had thought that it was not the opportune time and had concluded: “I believe time works for us”.\n– A declaration of UMO Ilinden, signed by its chairman, Mr Ivan Singartiyski (the second applicant), and its secretary, Mr Ivan Gargavelov, had been published in the issue of Macedonian Sun of 10 April 1998. In this declaration the Pirin region had been referred to as “part of Macedonia”. The organisation had proclaimed that it was a defender of “the Macedonians in Pirin Macedonia and Bulgaria”, that is, a distinction had been drawn between Pirin Macedonia and Bulgaria.\n– The issues of the newspaper Dnevnik of 16 and 20 February 1999 had contained publications relating to a letter issued by the applicant party and to a press conference given by its chairman, Mr Ivan Singartiyski, in Skopje. It had been indicated in them that “Bulgaria even [then] continue[d] to misappropriate Macedonia’s cultural heritage” and that “Bulgaria [had] incited Macedonia’s partition”.\n– the applicant party had, together with several foreign organisations, participated in the issuing of a Declaration for the protection of the Macedonian people’s national distinctiveness, addressed to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s Government. Point five of the declaration had requested an affirmation to the effect that part of the Macedonian people lived on Macedonian territory given in temporary trusteeship to Albania, Bulgaria and Greece by the 1913 treaty of Bucharest[2]. It had been once again proclaimed that this part of Bulgaria’s territory was only temporarily under Bulgarian administration.\n– On 8 October 1999 Mr Atanas Manushkin, running for mayor of Razlog on the applicant party’s ticket, had declared at a press conference: “In several statements made by members of the Bulgarian Government it was said that if the [United Democratic Forces[3]] do not win the elections in Razlog, no funding will be forthcoming to the region. Thus, if we win, the government gives us the right to freely choose and declare that this is a free territory, which may decide subsequently where to turn to.”\n– In an interview of 20 October 1999 the applicant party’s chairman, Mr Ivan Singartiyski (the second applicant), had been even more radical. He had noted that the party should be firm and assert the interests of Pirin Macedonia. He had gone on to say that the prime minister should be presented with the following statement: “We have certain demands, or else we will secede Macedonia”.\n– The letter sent by Mr Kiril Ivanov on 20 July 1999 on behalf of the applicant party to the Open Society Institute in Budapest (see paragraphs 19 and 20 above) was also significant. In it he had expressed the wish that “Pirin Macedonia gain cultural, political and economic autonomy”. He had also stated that “the human rights of the Macedonians in Pirin Macedonia [stood] higher than Bulgaria’s national sovereignty”. In the court’s view, the fact that the applicant party’s leadership had distanced itself from Mr Ivanov was not relevant, as this had happened only after the letter had reached the addressee and had become known to the public.", "27. The Constitutional Court continued:\n“The facts set out above indicate that the [applicant party’s] activity is focused around the Pirin region. It treats this part of the country’s territory as non‑Bulgarian land. In its view, it is foreign territory, given to Bulgaria for temporary administration pursuant to an international treaty. [The applicant party’s] activity is in that direction, going as far as secession of the territory in question from Bulgaria.\nThis is indicated by the calls for autonomy, which is expressly proscribed by Article 2 § 1 of the Constitution. It is also indicated by the maps of Macedonia issued and circulated [by the applicant party], by the definition of the Pirin region as part of Macedonia and by the interpretations of the Balkan War and the Bucharest treaty of 1913. Its culmination is the threat to secede the Pirin region if the party’s demands are not met. Such a threat, when made by the chairperson of a party, could not only be in words. It is real and shows the positions of the party itself; moreover, it has been supported by its other leaders.\nThe actions in question constitute an activity aimed against the territorial integrity of the country within the meaning of Article 44 § 2 of the Constitution. Each and every one of them [goes against this Article’s proscription].\nThe constitutional rule protects a value of the highest calibre, namely the territorial integrity of the Republic of Bulgaria, which Article 2 § 2 of the Constitution proclaims as inviolable. That is why [the proscription has been breached] even in the absence of effective damage to the protected value – the country’s territory. An activity aimed against the territorial integrity, such as the one present here, is quite sufficient.\nA political party which declares part of Bulgaria’s territory as foreign and engages in actions for its secession is an unconstitutional party. It has no right to exist.\nThe Constitutional Court deems it necessary to underscore that its notion of unconstitutionality is in line with Article 22 § 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sand Article 11 § 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. These provisions allow restrictions of the freedom of association when necessary in the interests of national security, as here. There is no doubt that an activity aimed against the territorial integrity of the Republic of Bulgaria imperils its national security.”", "28. Three judges voted against the majority. In their dissenting opinions they, inter alia, expressed the view that the activities of UMO Ilinden should not be taken into account for the purpose of evaluating the applicant party’s constitutionality. They went on to say that the Constitutional Court had erred in taking into account only certain statements of members and leaders of the applicant party. Its most fundamental activity since its registration was rather its normal and fully democratic participation in the local government elections in October 1999. However, the court had chosen to ignore that fact. Lastly, the dissenting judges expressed the opinion that the applicant party was being penalised for expressing its views, which it was entitled to convey, although they were shocking and probably offensive for the majority of Bulgarians." ]	[ 7 ]
[ "5. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kurdzhali.", "6. On 20 June 1999 the applicant, while driving his car, was involved in a traffic accident with another car.", "7. Subsequently, the driver of the other car filed a complaint with the police, claiming that the applicant had made him sign a note for 3,000 German Marks (approximately EUR 1,538) for a non-existent debt. He maintained that the applicant had forced him into signing the document by threatening him verbally, with a firearm and by inflicting a light bodily injury.", "8. On 25 June 1999 the applicant was arrested, charged with extortion accompanied with a light bodily injury and using a firearm, and placed in pre-trial detention. The offence carried a possible sentence of two to eight years' imprisonment.", "9. It is unclear how long the preliminary investigation lasted and when an indictment against the applicant was submitted to the courts.", "10. On 13 September 1999 the applicant's defence counsel requested to be provided access to the evidence against the applicant. On an unspecified date the judge-rapporteur of the Pazardzhik Regional Court dismissed the request for access to the evidence prior to the court hearings.", "11. The first court hearing was held on 6 October 1999.", "12. By judgment of 4 November 1999 the Pazardzhik Regional Court found the applicant guilty of extortion accompanied with a light bodily injury and using a firearm. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, suspended, and fined 3,000 Bulgarian Levs (BGN : approximately EUR 1,538). The applicant was also ordered to pay BGN 3,000 (approximately EUR 1,538) in damages to the victim. Finally, the court ordered his release on bail of BGN 500 (approximately EUR 256), which he apparently paid and was released on the same day.", "13. There are no indications that the applicant appealed against the judgment.", "14. The applicant was in pre-trial detention between 25 June 1999 and 4 November 1999 for a total period of four months and nine days.", "15. Following his arrest on 25 June 1999 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention by decision of an investigator from the Regional Investigation Division, approved by the Pazardzhik Prosecutor's Office later in the day. The motives for imposing the pre-trial detention were the\n“social severity of the crime, the personality of the offender, the high probability that he would abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation”.", "16. The applicant filed six appeals against his detention.", "17. On 28 June 1999 the applicant filed his first appeal against the detention. He maintained that it was unlawful, because of the alleged lack of evidence that he had committed the offence, that he would abscond, re‑offend or obstruct the investigation. He stated that he did not have a criminal record, that he had a permanent address and that all the evidence in the case had already been collected.", "18. On 9 July 1999, which was eleven days after the filing date, the Pazardzhik Regional Court examined the applicant's appeal. At the hearing the representative of the Prosecutor's Office challenged the applicant's assertions. She considered the applicant's failure to report the traffic accident as an indication that he sought to hide the event, and therefore to hinder the investigation, and stated that there were still investigative procedures to be conducted in the case. By decision of the same day the Pazardzhik Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It did not consider the fact that the applicant had a permanent address as sufficient proof that there was no risk that he might abscond. The court noted that he had been charged with a serious crime and, essentially on this basis, concluded that there was a risk that he might abscond, obstruct the investigation or re-offend.", "19. The applicant filed further appeals against his detention on 12 July, 22 July and 2 August 1999, citing similar grounds. The applicant also noted that the case was progressing, that all the evidence had been colleted and that there was no possibility for him to hamper the investigation. The aforementioned appeals were all dismissed by the Pazardzhik Regional Court on 19 July, 30 July and 6 August 1999, respectively, with wording similar to that in its decision of 9 July 1999.", "20. On 8 September 1999 the applicant filed another appeal against his detention. He reiterated most of the previously given grounds, but also claimed an alleged violation of his rights under the Convention and presented evidence that his medical condition had deteriorated while in detention, namely that his chronic gastritis had become inflamed.", "21. On 13 September 1999 the judge-rapporteur dismissed the appeal citing lack of new grounds for changing the terms of the detention. The applicant appealed. However, the Pazardzhik Regional Court did not transfer the court file together with the appeal to the Plovdiv Appeals Court.", "22. On 23 September 1999 the applicant complained of the delay to the Supreme Judicial Council, the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice and the President of the Pazardzhik Regional Court. On the same day the applicant also filed a request with the Plovdiv Appeals Court asking it to demand, on its own motion, the case file from the Pazardzhik Regional Court so that it could rule on the appeal.", "23. On 28 September 1999 the Plovdiv Appeals Court informed the Pazardzhik Regional Court that it should rule on the applicant's appeal and if it dismisses it, to forward the case file to it.", "24. Albeit the specific instructions, on 30 September 1999 the judge‑rapporteur of the Pazardzhik Regional Court refused to forward the case file to the Plovdiv Appeals Court. He maintained that his refusal to forward the file could not be challenged and that he had already ruled on the appeal on 13 September 1999.", "25. On 11 October 1999 the applicant filed his sixth appeal against the detention. The court allegedly refused to rule on it until the next court hearing on 4 November 1999, which was twenty four days after the date of filing.", "26. On 4 November 1999 the Pazardzhik Regional Court delivered its judgment (see paragraph 12 above)." ]	[ 2 ]
[ "9. Ilinden is an association based in south‑west Bulgaria, in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia. It has chapters in, inter alia, the towns of Sandanski, Petrich and Blagoevgrad.", "10. Ilinden was founded on 14 April 1990. In 1990 it applied for registration. The courts refused, holding that “its statute and programme were directed against the unity of the nation” (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, §§ 10‑14, ECHR 2001‑IX). Its second and third attempts to register in 1998‑99 and 2002‑04 likewise failed (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 59491/00, 9 September 2004).", "11. During the period 1990‑97 Ilinden each year tried to organise meetings at sites in Pirin Macedonia to commemorate certain historical events. All these commemorations were banned by the authorities (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, cited above §§ 15‑31).", "12. On 25 March 1998 the second applicant and three other members of Ilinden informed the mayor of Sandanski that the organisation indented to organise a meeting on 19 April at the Rozhen monastery to commemorate the anniversary of the death of a historical figure buried there – Yane Sandanski. On 3 April the mayor informed them that he prohibited the meeting, as the municipality was preparing a commemoration and as another association, which, according to the Government, was hostile towards Ilinden, had already notified the mayor of its intention to hold a meeting at the same time and place. Upon that the second applicant and the other members of Ilinden informed the mayor that in view of this scheduling conflict they decided to move the event to an earlier date, 18 April. On 14 April the mayor replied that he could not assent to that either, as in the meantime the other association had informed him that their commemoration would last from 18 until 22 April.", "13. On 14 and on 16 April 1998 Ilinden lodged applications for judicial review of the mayor's refusals with the Sandanski District Court.", "14. On 10 April 1998 it also advised the head of the local police station of its intention to hold the meeting on 18 April.", "15. On 16 April 1998 the police conducted a search at the home of a member of Ilinden, which served as a club of the organisation, and at another member's home, and seized a copy machine, newspapers, books, leaflets, and some other items.", "16. On 17 April 1998 the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office issued a decree, ordering the police to take measures to prevent Ilinden from holding a meeting. The decree, which was based on Article 185 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), stated that the holding of the meeting would constitute an offence under Article 174a of the Criminal Code (“the CC”).", "17. On 17 April 1998 the police summoned the second applicant and several other members of Ilinden. They were issued written warnings informing them that the planned meeting had been banned by the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office.", "18. On 18 April 1998 a number of members and followers of Ilinden from towns and villages in Pirin Macedonia tried to approach Rozhen by cars and by buses. All were turned back by the police who were placed at checkpoints on the roads leading to the monastery. The passengers of one bus were forced off and the driver was fined for allegedly driving a vehicle in a state of disrepair. It seems that one person coming by car was taken into custody by the Sandanski police for ten hours for allegedly failing to produce an identification document, and was ill‑treated.", "19. On 24 April 1998 the Sandanski District Court informed Ilinden of its refusal to examine the applications for judicial review on the merits as they had been submitted on behalf of an unregistered organisation and were vague. It invited Ilinden to rectify those deficiencies within seven days.", "20. On 29 April 1998 the second applicant and several other members of Ilinden filed complaints against the 16 April search and seizure with the Regional Police Directorate and requested the return of the seized items. It seems that no reply was received.", "21. On 13 May 1998 the second applicant complained to the Sofia Military Prosecutor's Office about the coercive actions of the police before and during the planned commemoration. It seems that he did not receive an answer.", "22. On 10 July 1998 Ilinden notified the mayor of Petrich that it planned to hold a meeting in the area of Samuilova krepost on 2 August. On 15 July the mayor replied that he could not allow the holding of a meeting, as another meeting had been planned for the same date and place by a municipal child centre.", "23. On 16 July 1998 Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with the Petrich District Court, arguing that for years in a row its meetings had been banned. It also stated that the area where it planned to hold the meeting was large enough for two parallel events; if that was deemed impracticable, it was prepared to reschedule the meeting for another date.", "24. The court dismissed the application in a judgment of 20 July 1998. It held that Ilinden was not duly registered “in accordance with the laws of the country”. As a result, it was unclear who would be the organiser of the event and who would be responsible for the order during the meeting, in accordance with sections 9 and 10 of the Meetings and Marches Act. The court concluded that the lack of clarity as to the organisers of a public event endangered public order and the rights and freedoms of others.", "25. On 28 July 1998 the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office issued a decree under Article 185 § 1 of the CCP, ordering the police to take measures to prevent Ilinden from holding a meeting. It reasoned that Ilinden was not registered and hence had no right to organisational or political activities; the holding of a meeting would therefore constitute an offence under Article 174a of the CC. Furthermore, Ilinden was advocating changes in the constitutional order in Bulgaria and the holding of a meeting would thus also constitute an offence under Chapter 1 of the CC.", "26. On 2 August 1998 a number of members and followers of Ilinden travelled by car to Samuilova krepost. All roads leading to the site were blocked by the police who were stopping the cars and turning them back. Earlier in the morning members from Petrich gathered at a bus station in order to go to the site. Several police officers approached them, informed them that the meeting had been banned by the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office, and warned them not to try to reach the site. The plans of Ilinden to have the meeting at the planned spot having failed, its members decided to hold it at the organisation's club in Petrich. On the way there they tried to lay flowers and wreaths at the memorial of a poet. The police blocked their way. Apparently one person was arrested and held for six hours in custody.", "27. On 7 September 1998 Ilinden notified the mayor of Blagoevgrad that it planned to lay wreaths on 12 September at the memorial of a prominent historical figure – Gotze Delchev, situated in the centre of the town, to observe the seventy-forth anniversary of the alleged killing of certain Macedonian activists by agents of the Bulgarian government. As no reply was forthcoming, the head of the local chapter of Ilinden telephoned the secretary of the municipality to enquire about the matter. The secretary informed him that Ilinden would not receive a written answer and that the municipality would advise the police so that it could prevent the event.", "28. The applicants submitted that on 10 September 1998 Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with the Blagoevgrad District Court, but that it was not examined within the statutory time-limit. The Government submitted that the records of the court did not indicate that an application had indeed been lodged.", "29. On 11 September 1998 the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office issued a decree under Article 185 § 1 of the CCP, ordering the police to take measures to prevent Ilinden from holding a meeting. It reasoned that Ilinden was not registered and hence had no right to organisational or political activities. Also, it was advocating changes in the constitutional order of Bulgaria and expressed anti-Bulgarian views. Thus, the holding of a meeting would lead to the commission of offences under Article 174a § 2 and Chapter 1 of the CC.", "30. In the evening of 11 September 1998 the police visited the house of the head of the local chapter of Ilinden and warned him that if he tried to organise the event he would be criminally prosecuted.", "31. On 12 September 1998 members and followers of Ilinden tried to approach the memorial of Gotze Delchev, but the police blocked their way. They informed them that the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office had banned the event and read them the decree, but refused to give them a copy.", "32. On 7 April 1999 Ilinden notified the mayor of Sandanski that it planned a commemoration at Rozhen monastery on 25 April. On 9 April the mayor informed Ilinden that it would receive a reply after presenting a document establishing that it was a registered organisation.", "33. The applicants submitted that on 16 April 1999 Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with the Sandanski District Court, but that the court did not reply.", "34. On an unspecified later date several members of Ilinden were warned by the police to not organise a meeting on 25 April.", "35. On 25 April 1999 members and followers of Ilinden tried to approach Rozhen by cars. The police, who had dispatched patrols at all roads leading to the monastery, blocked their way and turned them back. Some drivers were fined, allegedly for driving vehicles in state of disrepair. On the way back members of the Sandanski chapter of Ilinden tried to lay flowers at the bust of Yane Sandanski, but the police seized the flowers and allegedly arrested one person.", "36. On 27 April 1999 Ilinden notified the mayor of Blagoevgrad that it planned to lay wreaths at the memorial of Gotze Delchev on 4 May.", "37. On 29 April 1999 the mayor invited Ilinden to present a document establishing that was a registered organisation.", "38. The same day the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office issued a decree under Article 185 § 1 of the CCP, ordering the police to take measures to prevent Ilinden from holding a meeting. It reasoned that the holding of a meeting would constitute offences under Article 174a and Chapter 1 of the CC.", "39. On 3 May 1999 a member of Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with the Blagoevgrad District Court. The court refused to examine the application by an order of 4 May, as it was unclear who was the organiser of the planned event. Moreover, the court was competent to deal with applications against orders banning meetings; no such order had been issued.", "40. On 4 May 1999 members and followers of Ilinden who tried to approach the memorial were stopped by the police who informed them that the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office had issued a decree prohibiting the event. The police read out the decree, but refused to give them a copy.", "41. On 25 May 1999 Ilinden complained to the Sofia Military Prosecutor's Office about the coercive actions of the police and the authorities. On 25 May that Office refused to open criminal proceedings, reasoning that, since Ilinden had not been registered, the ban of its meeting had been lawful and that the police had acted in pursuance of their duty to preserve public order.", "42. On 12 July 1999 Ilinden notified the mayor of Petrich that it planned to hold a meeting at Samuilova krepost on 1 August. On 20 July the mayor replied that he could not allow the holding of a meeting, as another meeting had been planned for the same date and place by another organisation.", "43. On 21 July 1999 Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with the Petrich District Court, stating that it was prepared to move its meeting to another hour of the day or to hold it on some of the hills adjacent to Samuilova krepost, so as to avoid interfering with the other meeting. The court dismissed the application in a judgment of 26 July 1999. It held that Ilinden was non-existent as it was not registered. As a result, it could not be considered as the organiser of, and be responsible for order during the meeting, as required by sections 9 and 10 of the Meetings and Marches Act. In the court's view, that lack of clarity as to the organisers of the event endangered public order. Moreover, another meeting had been scheduled for the same date and place.", "44. On 27 July 1999 the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office issued a decree under Article 185 § 1 of the CCP, ordering the police to take measures to prevent Ilinden from holding a meeting. It considered that the holding of a meeting would constitute offences under Article 174a and Chapter 1 of the CC.", "45. It seems that no meeting was held on 1 August 1999 at Samuilova krepost by any other organisation. When that same day members and followers of Ilinden tried to approach the site by cars, they were stopped by police stationed at the roads leading to the site.", "46. On 11 April 2000 Ilinden notified the mayor of Sandanski that it intended to organise a commemorative meeting on 22 April at Rozhen monastery. On 18 April the mayor made an order prohibiting the meeting, apparently on the ground it would endanger public order. Ilinden did not seek judicial review of this order.", "47. On 22 April 2000 members and followers of Ilinden tried to approach Rozhen by cars. They were stopped at police checkpoints, where some of the drivers were fined, allegedly for traffic violations. It seems that the police also seized material intended for the decoration of a stage which the members of Ilinden planned to set up at the site. A vehicle transporting musicians and their instruments was not allowed to continue. The cars were stopped again at a second police post near the monastery and some written materials were impounded. However, some of the members and followers of Ilinden were allowed to approach the site, which was heavily guarded by police. The applicants alleged that a plain-clothes police officer was filming the participants despite their objections. They laid flowers and made a short speech, apparently denouncing the “assimilation policy” led by the Bulgarian Government. After that they left the site.", "48. On 10 July 2000 Ilinden notified the mayor of Petrich of its intention to hold a commemorative meeting on 30 July at Samuilova krepost. By a letter of 18 July the mayor replied that he could not allow the event, as another association had already applied for authorisation to organise a meeting on the same date.", "49. Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with the Petrich District Court. It argued that the site was large enough for two events to take place simultaneously. The court dismissed the application in a judgment of 24 July 2000. It found that Ilinden had not been registered and apparently had links with a political party, “UMO Ilinden – PIRIN”, which had been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on 29 February 2000 for acting against the territorial integrity of the country (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59489/00, §§ 21‑27, 20 October 2005). The holding of a meeting by Ilinden could therefore pose a threat to the territorial integrity of the country. Moreover, another, duly registered, association intended to organise a meeting on the same date. The parallel holding of two events could endanger public order.", "50. Nevertheless, on 30 July 2000 certain members and followers of Ilinden were able to hold a meeting at Samuilova krepost. It seems that the police did not interfere.", "51. On 1 September 2000 Ilinden informed the mayor of Blagoevgrad that that it wanted to hold a commemoration at the memorial of Gotze Delchev on 12 September. The mayor did not reply. Ilinden then lodged an application for judicial review with the Blagoevgrad District Court, but did not get an answer.", "52. On 8 September 2000 the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office issued a decree under Article 185 § 1 of the CCP, ordering the police to take measures to prevent Ilinden from holding a meeting. It reasoned that the holding of a meeting would constitute an offence under Chapter 1 of the CC.", "53. On 12 September 2000 members and followers of Ilinden tried to approach the memorial, but were stopped by the police. A police officer read out the decree prohibiting the commemoration, but refused to furnish a copy of it.", "54. On 4 April 2001 Ilinden notified the mayor of Sandanski that it would organise a meeting on 22 April at Rozhen monastery. The mayor did not reply.", "55. On 22 April 2001 members and followers of the organisation assembled at the site. Approximately fifty police officers were also present. The applicants averred that at some point during the meeting two members tried to place a wreath covered with a band with an inscription on the grave of Yane Sandanski. Allegedly four policemen moved towards them and ordered that the band be removed. When the persons carrying the wreath refused, the police seized it and arrested one of them. He was taken to a nearby village, released and warned not to try to return to the meeting. Additionally, a poster brought by the members of Ilinden was allegedly taken away by a plainclothes police officer. The police also prevented the placing on the podium of loudspeakers the members of Ilinden had brought. The applicants also alleged that local catering companies were prohibited by the municipal authorities from sending staff and facilities to the site during the meeting. The Government submitted that during the meeting a member of Ilinden stated that “there have been and will be Macedonians. Death to the enemies! Not a single Bulgarian will remain living...”. According to them, one person who was drunk was taken out of the area where the meeting was taking place.", "56. On 27 April 2001 Ilinden notified the mayor of Blagoevgrad that it indented to lay flowers at the memorial of Gotze Delchev on 4 May. The mayor did not reply.", "57. On 4 May 2001 a group of members and followers of Ilinden attempted to approach the memorial to lay a wreath covered with a band with an inscription. The applicants alleged that the police intervened and ordered them to remove the band with the inscription, citing a decree made by the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office. Apparently the members and followers of Ilinden refused and several plainclothes police officers diverted them from the memorial. The members and followers of Ilinden headed for a nearby church, followed by the police who were allegedly shouting insulting words at them. The applicants averred that two police officers seized a camera held by one of the members. The members laid the wreath at a grave in the churchyard. Later in the day three unknown persons took it away. According to the Government, the police had to disrupt the ceremony and direct the members and followers of Ilinden to the nearby church because other persons who were standing nearby became agitated upon the arrival of news that members of UMO Ilinden – PIRIN (see paragraph 49 above) had tried to assault the Bulgarian ambassador in Skopje.", "58. On 12 July 2001 Ilinden notified the mayor of Petrich of its intention to hold a meeting on 29 July at Samuilova krepost. By a letter of 20 July, which was allegedly delivered at the home of a member of Ilinden on 28 July – a Saturday – the mayor prohibited the meeting because another meeting had been planned for the same date by a municipal child centre.", "59. On 25 July 2001 the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office issued a decree under Article 185 § 1 of the CCP, ordering the police to take measures to prevent Ilinden from holding a meeting. It reasoned that the holding of a meeting would constitute offences under Article 174a and Chapter 1 of the CC.", "60. On 29 July 2001 a group of approximately two hundred and fifty people tried to approach Samuilova krepost by buses and cars. They were turned back by the police two kilometres before the site. The applicants allege that the police told them that military exercises were to take place and that they could not continue. According to the Government, they were informed of the prosecutor's decree prohibiting the event. After they were stopped, the members and followers of Ilinden decided to lay flowers at the memorial of a poet in Petrich. Several dozen police officers blocked their way. Apparently the second applicant, Mr Ivanov, and another person were arrested and kept several hours in custody.", "61. On 23 August 2002 Ilinden notified the mayor of Blagoevgrad that it wanted to hold a commemoration at the memorial of Gotze Delchev in the centre of Blagoevgrad on 12 September. The mayor did not reply.", "62. At approximately 3.30 p.m. on 12 September 2002 members and followers of Ilinden, who had gathered at a meeting point situated at a little less than a kilometre from the memorial, started marching toward it. However, at first that proved impossible because the memorial was surrounded by a group of about twenty persons who were shouting insults. Several persons from that group attacked individual members and followers of Ilinden, broke the flagstaff one of them was carrying, tried to take another flag, tore a poster and took the ribbon from a wreath carried by one of the members of Ilinden. A member of Ilinden was filming with a camera. One person attacked him from behind and tore the electrical cables of the camera. The police was present and had formed a cordon between the members and followers of Ilinden and the hostile group, but apparently failed to prevent the above incidents. However, they secured the members and followers of Ilinden access to the memorial, where they laid a wreath. The president of Ilinden tried to make a short speech, which was constantly interrupted by the shouting of the hostile group. The members and followers of Ilinden then retreated from the memorial under police escort.", "63. On 23 September 2002 Ilinden complained to the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office about the actions of the hostile group. That Office ordered a preliminary verification, but apparently nothing ensued.", "64. On 15 October 2002 Ilinden complained to the Sofia Military Prosecutor's Office about the inactivity of the police officers present during the 12 September meeting and about their failure to secure the peaceful holding of the event. That office carried out a preliminary verification and on 10 December 2002 refused to open criminal proceedings. On appeal of Ilinden its decree was upheld by the Sofia Military Appellate Prosecutor's Office on 20 February 2003. Ilinden further appealed to the Chief Prosecutor's Office, which upheld the refusal in a decree of 6 October 2003, reasoning that Ilinden's allegations were not supported by the facts established during the preliminary verification. The police had strictly complied with the relevant legal provisions. Although certain members of the organisation had acted provocatively, the officers had showed restraint and had performed their duties.", "65. On an unspecified date in July 2003 Ilinden notified the mayor of Petrich that it planned to hold a meeting at Samuilova krepost on 2 August, to commemorate the one-hundred anniversary of the Ilinden uprising. Apparently the mayor assented and on 2 August 2003 members and followers of Ilinden gathered at Samuilova krepost. There was a four-hour programme. During the entire event a plainclothes police officer was filming. When the chairperson of Ilinden tried to remove the camera, there ensued a scuffle and the police attempted to arrest him.", "66. On 28 August 2003 Ilinden notified the mayor of Blagoevgrad that on 12 September it intended to organise a commemoration at the memorial of Gotze Delchev. In its notification it stated that the purpose of the event was to honour the memory of the “victims of the genocide ... inflicted by the Bulgarian Government on the Macedonian nation”. In a letter of 1 September, which was posted on 5 and arrived on 9 September, the mayor informed Ilinden that in principle every citizen of Bulgaria had the right to commemorate national heroes as Gotze Delchev. However, the remarks contained in the notification were unconstitutional and provocative. They were indicative of actions which would infringe the rights of others and would lead to conflicts, as had already happened in the past. Also, in order to organise events, Ilinden had to be registered. Finally, there was no need for the planned event to take place in front of the memorial of Gotze Delchev and its timing was inopportune, because another event had been planned for the same time and date. If Ilinden chose another place for holding its commemoration, the mayor would reconsider the matter.", "67. On 10 September 2003 Ilinden objected to the mayor's decision. It stated that it was willing to shift the time of its commemoration to one hour later, but that the place was closely bound to a specific occasion and could not be changed. The same day the organisation filed an application for judicial review with the Blagoevgrad District Court.", "68. On 11 September 2003 the police summoned two members of Ilinden and cautioned them in writing to refrain from organising the event planned for 12 September.", "69. On 12 September 2003 the mayor of Blagoevgrad informed Ilinden that he prohibited the planned event, because it would create conditions for the disruption of the public order and would endanger the rights of others.", "70. On 12 September 2003 members and followers of Ilinden gathered in the centre of Blagoevgrad with a view to marching to the memorial of Gotze Delchev. Approximately fifty police officers were also present. Several officers approached the members and followers of Ilinden and read out a decree of the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office prohibiting the commemoration.", "71. In a decision of 16 September 2003 the Blagoevgrad District Court declared the application for judicial review inadmissible. It found that it had been filed with the court on 10 September and had been brought to the attention of a judge-rapporteur at 4.37 p.m. on 11 September. By section 12(6) of the Meetings and Marches Act, the time-limit for ruling on the application was five days. As of 16 September the issue whether to allow the event planned for 12 September had become moot and there was no need for the court to rule on that." ]	[ 7 ]
[ "6. The applicant, a Russian national, was born in 1927 and died in 2003. At the relevant time he lived in Rostov-on-Don.", "7. The second applicant is a Russian national and was born in 1949. He is the applicant's son and lives in Rostov-on-Don.", "8. In 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and placed in police custody. In 1996 the court acquitted him.", "9. In September 1996 the applicant brought proceedings against the State claiming damages for his unlawful detention. On 29 December 1997 the Proletarskiy District Court satisfied his claim ordering the State to pay the applicant damages in the amount of RUR 34,000. This decision entered into force. However on 25 may 1998 the decision in the first applicant's favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. The case was remitted to the first instance court.", "10. On 15 March 1999 the Rostov-on-Don Proletarskiy District Court satisfied the applicant's claims in part awarding him 24,917 Russian Roubles (~970 Euros), to be recovered from the regional branch of the Federal Treasure. The decision was not appealed against and, as follows from a copy of this decision provided by the applicant, became final on 17 March 1999.", "11. On 12 May 1999 the local bailiffs' service initiated the enforcement proceedings against the regional branch of the Treasury. The applicant and the bailiff repeatedly contacted the defendant in order to recover the amount awarded by the District Court. However, the payment orders were returned to the bailiff unexecuted. The regional branch of the Treasury explained that since no budget funds had been allocated from the federal budget for these purposes, the judgment debt could not be paid.", "12. In the following months the bailiffs addressed the Federal Treasury in Moscow and the Ministry of Finance with request to make necessary budget appropriations to execute the judgment of 15 March 1999. As follows from the letter of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance of 25 August 1999, the information on the judgment debt was included in a special data-base which listed all claims against the Federal Treasury.", "13. In April 2000 the case-file concerning the enforcement proceedings was transmitted to the bailiffs in Moscow. The applicant was informed that henceforth the enforcement proceedings would be carried out by the bailiffs in Moscow, at the address of the central office of the Federal Treasury.", "14. In the meantime the applicant asked the District Court to clarify which State institution was responsible for payment of the judgment debt. On 13 September 2000 the District Court ruled that the debt should be recovered from the central office of the Federal Treasury in Moscow. The court accordingly delivered a new writ of execution which was forwarded to the bailiffs' service in Moscow.", "15. On 26 March 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant. The Moscow-based bailiffs' service explained to the applicant that due to changes in the legislation, and, in particular, pursuant to the Law on the Federal Budget for 2001 (see the “Relevant domestic law” below), they ceased to be responsible for the forced execution of the court judgment against the State authorities. The bailiff proposed the applicant to forward the writ of execution together with some additional documents directly to the Ministry of Finance in Moscow.", "16. According to the respondent Government, at present the writ of execution is with the Ministry of Finance. The second applicant indicated that in December 2004 all documents required pursuant to Decree no. 666 had been submitted to the Ministry of Finance. However, it appears that to date the judgment has not been enforced.", "17. The second applicant was born in 1949 in Germany. Since 1950 his family lived in Australia. According to the applicant, in 1957, when they were visiting relatives in the Soviet Union, the Soviet authorities prohibited them from returning to Australia.", "18. The second applicant was also involved in a civil dispute with a private person regarding his father's flat. This dispute ended with the decisions taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 4 December 2002 and by the Proletarskiy District Court on 13 March 2003, which was not appealed against and became final on 25 March 2003." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "5. The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Klimovsk in the Moscow Region.", "6. In February 1999 the applicant brought an action against the Moscow Region health department, seeking to declare invalid some data in his medical records. The disputed information related to the applicant’s degree of disability and affected his pension entitlement and fitness for work.", "7. On 1 September 1999 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims.", "8. On 10 September 1999 the applicant filed an appeal. The appeal hearing was listed for 28 March 2000.", "9. On 20 March 2000 the applicant was admitted to a hospital for inpatient treatment. On 27 March 2000 his acquaintance asked the Moscow City Court, by a telegram sent on the applicant’s behalf, for an adjournment of the hearing. The Government denied that the telegram had been sent.", "10. On 28 March 2000 the Moscow City Court adjourned the appeal hearing until 4 April 2000. The Government submitted that the hearing had been adjourned because there had been no information that the applicant had been duly summoned.", "11. On 30 March 2000 the Moscow City Court mailed to the applicant a new summons for the hearing listed for 4 April. According to the postmark, it reached the applicant’s address on 5 April.", "12. On 4 April 2000 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal and rejected it. Neither party was present.", "13. On 7 April 2000 the applicant left the hospital.", "14. On 31 August 2000 the Moscow City Court informed the applicant that his appeal had been rejected on 4 April 2000." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "6. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Gaziantep.", "7. On 3 September 1997, 79 packages of powder (subsequently found to be starch) were found in the belly tank of the apparently unladen lorry which the applicant had just brought into the United Kingdom. The applicant was arrested, and on 4 September 1997 he was charged with knowingly being involved in the attempted import of a controlled drug (diamorphine). He was convicted on 25 March 1998 and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal arrived at the Criminal Appeals Office on 23 April 1998, and leave to appeal and legal aid were granted on 22 March 1999.", "8. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 6 March 2001. As to sentence it found as follows:\n“76. ... The points ... are, first, that no diamorphine was imported and that seems to us to be the most important point, namely that this was an offence of attempt and not of actual importation. 77.Second, that the appellant appears to have occupied a lowly position in what was undoubtedly an extensive chain, stretching from source abroad into this country. 78.Third, it is said that there was no evidence that he knew of the quantity involved. However, in that respect, in a massive importation of this kind, it is not usual to investigate how far an appellant was privy to the actual amount involved, bearing in mind that it would obviously have been an extremely substantial importation. 81.We attach some slight importance to the fourth element. So far as the fifth is concerned it is not one in which of a case of this kind we regard appropriate and to take into consideration [sic]. 82.Finally, counsel has advanced upon us the argument that this appeal has taken, as it undoubtedly has taken, an unconscionably long time to come on, for reasons which are no fault of the appellant or his advisers, but appear to have related to administrative difficulties within this court. He makes reference in that respect to Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights. However, it is not necessary to invoke that Article for the court to take into account, if it considers it appropriate, a delay of that kind. 83.We consider that, absent any reason for reduction of an unusual kind, had this importation been an importation of diamorphine, as the appellant no doubt believed it to be, a sentence of 18 years could have been expected. It does appear that, on the basis that it was simply an attempt, the judge reduced the level of sentence to the order of 14 years, bearing in mind the appellant’s apparent position in the chain. 84.In our view, a somewhat greater allowance could well have been made, allowing this with the fact that the defendant has spent a time of some anxiety, no doubt, waiting for longer than he should, in order to see whether his sentence would be reduced, we consider that it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of 14 years imposed to one of 12 years’ imprisonment. The appeal upon the sentence will be successful to that extent.”", "9. The applicant was released after having served approximately one half of the 12 year sentence, and deported to Turkey." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the village of Sorgovyy in the Zernogradksiy District of the Rostov Region.", "5. In 1988 the applicant took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Since late 1993 the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection.", "6. On 4 December 1998 the Zernogradskyy District Court of the Rostov Region (“the District Court”) granted the applicant's claim against a local pension authority (“the authority”) and recovered RUR 40,361.07 of unpaid social benefits.", "7. The judgment was upheld by the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) and came into force on 20 January 1999.", "8. On 25 February 1999 the bailiffs brought enforcement proceedings against the authority in this respect.", "9. The money due pursuant to the judgment of 4 December 1998 was paid to the applicant in full on 11 May 2002 which is three years, three months and twenty two days later.", "10. By judgment of 11 March 1999 the District Court examined and granted the applicant's new claim against the authority for unpaid benefits. It ordered a one-time payment of RUR 2,360.44 and monthly payments of RUR 2,886.43 from 1 February 1999 onwards in the applicant's favour. The court also ordered the authority to index-link the future monthly payments.", "11. The judgment was upheld by the Regional Court on 21 April 1999. On the same day it came into force.", "12. According to the Government, the one-time payment of RUR 2,360.44 in the applicant's favour was made on 1 June 2002 which is three years, one month and ten days after the entry into force of the judgment of 11 March 1999. As regards the monthly payments which were due as of 1 February 1999, they were paid on 29 June 2002 by a single instalment of RUR 94,508.04 covering the period between 1 February 1999 and 1 July 2002. It appears that starting from 1 July 2002 the payments have been made fully and on time.", "13. On an unspecified date the applicant again sued the authority for unpaid social benefits. By judgment of 27 April 2000 the District Court granted the claim and recovered an outstanding debt of RUR 92,122.44 and monthly payments of RUR 4,881.61 from 1 November 1999. By the same judgment the court ordered the authority to index-link future payments in line with a minimum monthly wage.", "14. The parties did not appeal against the judgment of 27 April 2000 and it came into force on 7 May 2000.", "15. The one-time payment of RUR 92,122.44 in the applicant's favour was made on 11 May 2002 which is two years and four days after the entry into force of the judgment of 27 April 2000. The Government submitted that the authority had fully enforced the judgment of 27 April 2000.", "16. On 29 November 2002 the District Court awarded damages in the applicant's favour and recovered compensation of RUR 207,201.56 for the delays in execution of the judgments in the above three sets of proceedings.", "17. This decision was upheld by the Regional Court on 25 December 2002 and enforced in full by a bank transfer of 22 April 2004 which is one year, four months and twenty-eight days after its entry into force.", "18. On an unspecified date the applicant brought a fresh set of court proceedings against the authority. He alleged that the remainder of the judgment of 27 April 2000 had not been enforced to date, that the minimum monthly wage in Russia had been increased five times, on 1 July 2000, 1 January and 1 July 2001, 1 May 2002 and 1 October 2003, that the amount of his monthly payments had been increased but once during the same period, that the coefficient used had been lower than it should have been and demanded damages in this connection.", "19. According to the Government, by judgment of 3 September 2004 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unfounded.", "20. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 13 October 2004." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul.", "5. In 1989 the applicant signed an agreement with the General Directorate of Land Office attached to the Ministry of Finance. Accordingly, the Land Office undertook to allocate a plot of land to the applicant and the applicant agreed to pay a certain amount of money to the authorities. The Land Office however failed to make the transfer and therefore on 18 October 1995 paid back the applicant’s money with interest.", "6. Alleging that he had suffered financial loss, on 21 December 1994 the applicant brought compensation proceedings in the Istanbul Administrative Court against the Land Office.", "7. On 27 December 1995 the Istanbul Administrative Court declared lack of jurisdiction and sent the file to the Ankara Administrative Court.", "8. On 26 March 1997 the Ankara Administrative Court held that as the Land Office had paid the applicant’s money back with interest, there was no need for the court to rule for pecuniary or non-pecuniary compensation. It accordingly rejected the applicant’s compensation claims.", "9. The applicant appealed and on 18 November 1999 the Council of State, upholding the first-instance court’s reasoning, rejected the applicant’s request.", "10. The applicant further applied for rectification, however his request was rejected by the Council of State on 27 June 2001." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "8. The applicant was born in 1967. He appears to be currently detained in Ukraine.", "9. At 8 p.m. on 12 October 1998 the applicant, who was allegedly in a state of intoxication, was arrested in the street by a police patrol and taken to a police station. He was then searched and a certain amount of marijuana was allegedly found on him.", "10. At 12:15 a.m. on 13 October 1998 the applicant was detained, by a decision of an investigator of the Akademicheskiy District Police Department of Moscow, on suspicion of illegal acquisition and possession of drugs. The investigator referred to the suppression of crime and prevention of the risk of the applicant's absconding as the reasons for the decision.", "11. On the same day the applicant was charged with the illegal acquisition of drugs for personal consumption and possession.", "12. On 15 October 1998 the investigator issued an order to detain the applicant on remand, which was approved by a public prosecutor on the same day. The order referred to the applicant's personality, the danger posed to the public by the crime with which he had been charged and the risk of his absconding.", "13. On 16 October 1998 the applicant was confined in the detention facility IZ‑48/2 “Butyrskiy” in Moscow.", "14. By a decision of the investigating authority the applicant was subjected to a psychiatric examination.", "15. On 19 November 1998 he was examined by experts from the Alekseev Psychiatric Hospital of Moscow. As the experts had difficulties in reaching conclusions the applicant was placed in the Serbskiy Forensic Psychiatry Institute in Moscow, which examined him from 10 December 1998 to 6 January 1999. It was noted that he had never previously been found to be suffering from a mental illness. The commission of experts diagnosed the applicant as suffering from profound dissociative personality disorder (innate psychopathy) and found that he could not be held responsible for the offence with which he had been charged. The experts recommended that the applicant undergo psychiatric treatment on an out‑patient basis at his place of residence.", "16. The period of the investigation and the applicant's detention in custody were extended twice by the public prosecutor's office, first until 12 January 1999 and later until 12 February 1999.", "17. On 10 February 1999 the investigation was completed and the applicant's criminal case was submitted to the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow.", "18. On 28 June 1999 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's request for release and ordered, while giving no reasons and no chance for the defence to object, an additional psychiatric examination. On 23 July 1999 the decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court on appeal.", "19. The applicant's examination by the commission of experts of the Serbskiy Forensic Psychiatry Institute on 25 August 1999 revealed no significant changes in the applicant's memory, attention and mental faculties. As the commission was uncertain as to the state of the applicant's mental health, it recommended he undergo a second psychiatric examination as an in‑patient.", "20. The latter was ordered by the District Court on 20 September 1999 and carried out by the Serbskiy Forensic Psychiatry Institute from 24 November 1999 to 24 December 1999. The commission of experts found that the applicant suffered from a psychological disorder in the form of profound dissociative psychopathy, that he had committed the offence in a deranged state of mind and that at present he had, inter alia, a perverted perception of the circumstances relevant to the criminal case against him and could not give adequate evidence about them. It was concluded this time that the applicant was in need of placement in a mental hospital for compulsory treatment.", "21. The hearing of the case was adjourned on a number of occasions because of the failure of duly notified witnesses to appear. By decisions of 22 February 2000 and 3 March 2000 the District Court ordered the district police to bring the witnesses to the court.", "22. On 10 March 2000 the District Court again dismissed the defence's request for the applicant's release, stating as follows:\n“Having considered the application [for release], in view of the nature of the crime committed, the court considers that it cannot be granted.”", "23. On the same day the District Court rejected the applicant's request to appear before the court on the ground that ill detainees were not transported to court from the detention facility IZ-48/2.", "24. On 3 April 2000 the District Court again dismissed a request by the applicant's lawyers for the applicant to appear personally at the hearing in order to give evidence in person and to be taken to the court for that purpose. The court explained its decision by reasoning that the statement of a person who had been legally established as mentally disturbed could not be accepted as evidence. The District Court also rejected a request by the applicant's lawyers to carry out an inquiry at the detention facility IZ-48/2 to clarify why they had refused to transport the applicant to the court.", "25. On 4 April 2000 the District Court examined the case at a public hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant's lawyer. At the hearing the court examined a member of the commission of experts which had carried out the second in‑patient psychiatric examination of the applicant recommending his placement in a mental hospital. The applicant's lawyers' request to examine an expert representing the initial opinion, which had found the applicant's out‑patient treatment at his place of his residence to be sufficient, was rejected by the court.", "26. The court found that at 5 p.m. on 12 October 1998 the applicant had acquired marijuana for personal consumption and kept it in his possession until being detained by the police three hours later. Such actions were punishable under Article 228 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The court noted that, according to the expert opinion, the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged in a deranged state of mind and that he was in need of compulsory treatment in a mental hospital. The court held that the applicant had committed the offence in a state of diminished responsibility, that he should therefore not be deemed responsible and that he should be placed in a mental hospital for compulsory treatment.", "27. The applicant's lawyers appealed against the decision on the grounds of, inter alia, the applicant's absence at the trial and the resulting failure of the court to examine his personality; the court's refusal to examine the first expert in order to settle the inconsistency between the two expert opinions in the case; and the court's failure to explain why preference was given to the second opinion. The defence referred to certificates issued by the detention facility IZ-48/2 showing a positive assessment of the applicant's behaviour and the satisfactory state of his physical and mental health. They also pointed out that the applicant was a good family man and that there was no indication that he had ever inflicted harm on others.", "28. On 25 April 2000 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It stated that it did not find any inconsistency between the two expert opinions or any reasons for not giving credence to the second one. The City Court's decision contains no comments in relation to the applicant's absence at the trial.", "29. On 23 May 2000 the applicant was transferred from the detention facility IZ-48/2 to the Moscow Psychiatric Hospital no. 7. It appears that he was later transferred to a psychiatric hospital in Nizhniy Novgorod from which he was discharged on 22 February 2001.", "30. On 11 February 2003 the Court communicated the present case to the Government.", "31. On 24 April 2003 the Moscow Public Prosecutor's Office brought an application for supervisory review of the case before the Presidium of the Moscow City Court. The prosecutor claimed that the trial court should have given reasons for ignoring the first expert opinion and basing its decision to place the applicant in a mental hospital on the second expert opinion. It was noted that the applicant's state of health had been essentially the same at the time of the two psychiatric examinations and that the expert, who was examined by the court, had failed to explain why the recommended type of treatment had been changed, that question never being resolved at the trial.", "32. On 5 June 2003 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court agreed with the arguments advanced by the prosecutor, quashed the decisions of 4 and 25 April 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination by another composition of judges of the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow.", "33. On 9 July 2003 the District Court held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant's lawyer. The court held that the applicant had unlawfully acquired and possessed drugs but that he should not be held criminally responsible since he had been in a deranged state of mind. The court further held that no compulsory medical measures should be imposed on the applicant, who had already undergone treatment following the court's decision of 4 April 2000.", "34. The applicant's lawyer appealed, referring, inter alia, to the applicant's absence at the first-instance hearing.", "35. On 4 September 2003 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 9 July 2003 and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant pursuant to an Amnesty Act of 26 May 2000.", "36. The applicant was kept in the detention facility IZ‑48/2 “Butyrskiy”, also referred to as SIZO-2, in Moscow from 16 October 1998 until 23 May 2000.", "37. The applicant was first held in a cell under the general regime. In January 1999, after he had undergone a psychiatric examination at the Serbskiy Forensic Psychiatry Institute, he was placed in the psychiatric ward of the detention facility SIZO-2.", "38. The applicant submitted that he had been held in cell no. 404 for the following approximate periods (give or take two or three days): from 6 January 1999 until 28 April 1999 and from 24 December 1999 until 25 May 2000.", "39. It measured 32 sq. m. It was three metres high with two windows of 1.7 by 1.7 metres equipped with shutters, which were made of metal plates five or six centimetres wide welded at an angle of forty-five degrees so that inmates could not see out of them and very little light could come in.", "40. The cell was dimly lit with one bulb of 40 to 60 watts. The temperature in winter was about 15 to 16 degrees centigrade.", "41. There was, however, a hot water supply, and the inmates received soap from preachers who regularly visited the cell.", "42. A 15- or 20-minute shower was allowed only once a week.", "43. Outdoor walks in exercise areas on the roof of the prison building did not exceed 30 to 40 minutes per day.", "44. The cell contained 24 bunk beds and held up to 26 inmates.", "45. The applicant and other inmates did not often have individual bedding. Thus, on his arrival the applicant was given neither individual bedding nor eating utensils. He went on a hunger strike and lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Justice. Only four days later mattresses, bed linen and eating utensils were given to him and his cell mates.\n(b) Cell no. 415", "46. On 28 April 1999 the applicant was put in cell no. 415 where he stayed until September 1999.", "47. The cell, measuring 11.25 sq. m, was three metres high and had one window measuring 2.9 sq. m equipped with metal shutters of the same type as in cell no. 404. The cell contained six bunk beds and held between three and five inmates.", "48. The summer of 1999 in Moscow was extremely hot. While the temperature outside was 40 degrees centigrade, in the cell it probably reached 50 degrees centigrade. The metal shutters heated up and glowed. To let air in the prison authorities kept a small opening in the cell door, designed to pass food to prisoners, open for an hour in the evenings, but it did not help.", "49. During the period of the applicant's detention in the cell it was disinfected only once.\n(c) Cell no. 408", "50. At the beginning of September 1999 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 408 which was similar to cell no. 404 except that the windows were equipped, in addition to the metal shutters, with a metal construction resembling a cage which prevented inmates from approaching the window.", "51. On 24 November 1999 the applicant was sent to the Serbskiy Forensic Psychiatry Institute for a second psychiatric examination and then, a month later, transferred back to cell no. 404.\n(d) General observations", "52. Detainees received extremely poor medical care. For the whole period of the applicant's confinement in the psychiatric ward of the Butyrskiy detention facility he was never examined by a psychiatrist. In May-June 1999 the applicant fell ill with cold. His repeated requests for medical assistance were left unanswered for almost a month. Medical help was provided only after he had threatened to go on hunger strike. The applicant was twice infected with pediculosis. According to the report of the Serbskiy Forensic Psychiatry Institute of 25 August 1999, at the time of his detention the applicant was diagnosed as having scabies. The applicant alleged that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention.", "53. The applicant repeatedly observed the beating of mentally ill detainees by their cell mates or the prison guards.", "54. The cells were never inspected by the health authority. There was no proper ventilation. Food was of poor quality and not sufficient.", "55. Approximately once a month prison guards conducted a search for prohibited objects, as a result of which many belongings of the detainees were stolen.", "56. The choice of books was very poor.", "57. According to the Government's observations of 21 June 2004, based on information provided by the head of the detention facility SIZO-2 and the health authority, the applicant was kept in three different cells described as follows: cell no. 415, from 25 April 1999 to 9 September 1999 (14.8 sq. m, 3.5 m. high, 1 window, 4 bunk beds, a lavatory, a wash stand, central cold-water supply, natural ventilation through a window); cell no. 408, from 9 September 1999 to 19 January 2000 (34.9 sq. m, 3.5 m. high, 2 windows, 9 bunk beds, a lavatory, a wash stand, central cold-water supply, natural ventilation through windows); cell no. 404, from 19 January 2000 to 23 May 2000 (35.6 sq. m, 3.5 m. high, 2 windows, 10 bunk beds, a lavatory, a wash stand, central cold-water supply, natural ventilation through windows).", "58. According to the Government's letter of 24 December 2004, from 10 January 1999 until 23 May 2000 the applicant was detained in cell no. 408 and cell no. 415.", "59. The Government acknowledged that the cells were overcrowded. During the period of the applicant's detention cell no. 408 contained 22 bunk beds and held up to 35 inmates (according to the letter of 24 December 2004 mentioned above).", "60. Windows in the cells, measuring 1.1 m. by 1.15 m., were equipped with metal bars and window panes with wooden frames. The Government submitted that no metal shutters were installed on them. A reference was made to a report on the examination of the cells by the health authority on 11 May 2004 and the following statement by the head of SIZO-2 dated 11 May 2004:\n“... None of the windows in the above-mentioned cells [cells 404, 408 and 415] has shutters on them.”", "61. The authorities ran daily inspections of the technical conditions of the cells in order to ensure, in particular, that the windows had panes in them and bulbs were changed. Any damage was repaired in the shortest time possible. The cells were regularly inspected by the health authority, which checked that the heating, ventilation and lighting of the cells complied with the established requirements. The relevant records did not contain any indications of a violation of the above requirements.", "62. The applicant had had outdoor walks for at least an hour per day. The inmates of each cell had walks in turn. There were several exercise areas on the roof of the building of the detention facility. Their size varied from 10.4 sq. m to 52.8 sq. m depending on the number of detainees kept in a cell.", "63. Three hot meals were served daily. The applicant had also been able to buy food in the prison shop and receive food parcels from relatives.", "64. As regards preventive measures against infectious diseases, on admission to the facility detainees underwent a medical examination and hygiene treatment. At least once a week they took a shower lasting not less than 15 minutes and had their bedding changed.", "65. The applicant and other detainees had received proper medical care, including specialist treatment. Those infected with scabies were isolated. During the period of the applicant's detention, no mass infectious diseases had been recorded and the health authority had not been notified of any emergency cases of scabies or pediculosis. The medical personnel of the detention facility had to undertake daily rounds of the cells. Medical assistance could be provided in the in‑patient unit of the facility or, where necessary, in other medical institutions of the penitentiary system or public hospitals.", "66. Medical records of detainees concerning the period of the applicant's detention were destroyed on the expiry of a maximum period for keeping them. The records containing information on the number of detainees kept in the cells at the same time as the applicant had been destroyed as well, as the statutory one-year period for keeping them had expired." ]	[ 1, 2, 3 ]
[ "9. The political party Ouranio Toxo (Rainbow), founded in 1994, has regularly taken part in elections since that date. Its declared aims include the defence of the Macedonian minority living in Greece. The other two applicants are members of the party's political secretariat.", "10. In September 1995 the party established its headquarters in the town of Florina. The second and third applicants affixed to the balcony of the premises a sign indicating the party's name in the two languages spoken in the region: Greek and Macedonian.", "11. According to the applicants, the opening of the headquarters and the affixing of the sign triggered a wave of violent protests by the town's inhabitants, but the police failed to take the appropriate measures to protect them against the various attacks to which they were subjected.", "12. In particular, the offices were opened in early September 1995 and on 12 September 1995 priests from the church in Florina published a statement describing the applicants as “friends of Skopje”, driven by “anti-Hellenic and treacherous sentiments”. The statement continued as follows: “we call upon the people to join a demonstration to protest against the enemies of Greece who arbitrarily display signs with anti-Hellenic slogans, and we will demand their deportation.”", "13. On 13 September 1995 the Florina town council held an informal meeting and, by a resolution published in the local press, decided to organise protests against the applicants.", "14. On the same day the public prosecutor at the Florina Criminal Court ordered the removal of the sign on the ground that the inclusion of the party's name in Macedonian was liable to sow discord (Article 192 of the Criminal Code – see paragraph 23 below) among the local population. Police officers removed the party's sign without giving any explanation to the applicants, who then put up a new sign. That evening, according to the applicants, while they were inside the party headquarters a crowd of people, among whom they apparently recognised the mayor, the deputy mayor and certain town councillors, gathered in front of the building to shout threats and insults at them, such as “traitors”, “dogs”, “death to the dogs of Skopje”, “you're going to die”, and “we'll burn everything”. The crowd also allegedly demanded that the applicants hand over the sign.", "15. On 14 September 1995 at about 1.30 a.m. a number of people allegedly attacked the party headquarters, and, after breaking down the door, assaulted those inside and demanded that they hand over the sign, which the applicants did. Another group entered the premises at approximately 4 a.m., threw all the equipment and furniture out of the window and set it on fire. According to the applicants, throughout these events they made a number of telephone calls to the police station located some 500 metres from the party headquarters, but were apparently told that no officers were available to come out. The applicants submitted that the public prosecutor's office took no action against those involved in the incidents. However, criminal proceedings for inciting discord were brought against four members of the party, including the second and third applicants, under Article 192 of the Criminal Code. The bill of indictment stated that “they had affixed to the party headquarters a sign on which, among other things, the word vino-zito (rainbow) was written in a Slavic language, and had thus sowed discord among the local inhabitants ...”. The applicants were committed for trial.", "16. The trial took place on 15 September 1998 before a single judge in the Florina Criminal Court, who acquitted the applicants (judgment no. 979/1998). The court acknowledged that a crowd had gathered in front of the party headquarters and that one of the applicants had been beaten up. It found that there had also been criminal damage, which had culminated in the premises being set on fire.", "17. On 5 December 1995 four party members, including the second and third applicants, lodged a criminal complaint and applied to be joined to the proceedings as civil parties, alleging that those responsible for the incidents had committed the following offences: incitement to discord (Article 192 of the Criminal Code), breach of the peace (Article 189), destruction of property (Article 381), criminal damage (Article 330), trespass (Article 334), threats (Article 333), insults (Article 361) and arson (Article 264).", "18. On 24 November 1999 the Indictments Division of the Florina Criminal Court considered that there was insufficient evidence against the individuals named in the applicants' complaint and decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against them (order no. 30/1999).", "19. On 10 December 1999 the applicants appealed.", "20. On 4 April 2000 the Indictments Division of the Court of Appeal for West Macedonia dismissed the appeal (order no. 27/2000).", "21. On 4 May 2000 the applicants appealed on points of law.", "22. On 30 January 2003 the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal as inadmissible (order no. 176/2003)." ]	[ 7, 3 ]
[ "6. The applicant was born in 1980. She is imprisoned in Gebze Prison.", "7. On 10 October 2001 the applicant was at a bus stop in İçerenköy in Istanbul when she was arrested by plain-clothes police officers on suspicion of being a member of the PKK. She was taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul State Security Directorate. On the same day, the police officers drafted an arrest protocol stating that the applicant had been arrested on account of her involvement in PKK-related activities. The applicant signed this protocol.", "8. The applicant's lawyer challenged the arrest before the investigating judge of the Istanbul State Security Court and requested that the applicant be released from detention. Her request was dismissed.", "9. On 11 October 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court extended the detention period until 14 October 2001.", "10. On 14 October 2001 the applicant could see her lawyer for a short period of time following the permission of the public prosecutor.", "11. On 15 October 2001 police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch requested that the applicant's custody period be extended for three more days. The single judge of the Istanbul State Security Court granted the request and extended the custody period until 17 October 2001 pursuant to Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant's lawyer challenged this decision before a panel of three judges of the Istanbul State Security Court and requested that the applicant be brought before a judge. Her request was dismissed.", "12. On 16 October 2001 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor, and thereafter before the investigating judge of the Istanbul State Security Court. Subsequently the judge ordered that the applicant be detained on remand.", "13. On 23 November 2001 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal armed organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.", "14. The Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of the offence and sentenced her to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. The judgment was later upheld by the Court of Cassation on 11 November 2004." ]	[ 2 ]
[ "8. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.", "9. On 22 February 1997 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate and was placed in custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP (Marxist Leninist Communist Party).", "10. On 6 March 1997 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court (“the State Security Court”). Subsequently, the investigating judge ordered the applicant's detention on remand.", "11. On 10 March 1997 the applicant challenged her detention on remand with the State Security Court. In the petition, the applicant stated that her address was known, and that there was no danger of her absconding or destroying the evidence. The State Security Curt rejected her objections, upholding the previous order of detention on remand.", "12. On 18 March 1997, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the same court against 23 persons including the applicant, inter alia, accusing her of being a member of the MLKP and having explosives in her possession. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be punished pursuant to Articles 168 § 1 and 264 § 5 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law No. 3713 (Anti-Terrorism Law).", "13. On 1 April 1997 the State Security Court commenced the trial against the applicant and prolonged her detention on remand having regard to the nature of the offences of which she was accused.", "14. On 8 October 1997 the court took a statement from the applicant, who denied all the charges against her. The applicant also repudiated the veracity of her police statement, alleging that it was made under duress. At the same hearing, the court ordered the applicant's continued detention having regard to “the nature of the offence, the content of the case-file, and the non-completion of the evidence”.", "15. At the hearing of 3 December 1997 the court heard three witnesses called by a co-accused of the applicant. Hand-written documents were shown to the applicant. The applicant accepted that these belonged to her, concerning notes taken from books. At the same hearing, the court accepted the intervention of the owner of a car which had been used during a robbery as the intervening complainant. The court further decided to ask the Istanbul 7th Assize Court about the outcome of criminal proceedings brought against the police officers that had conducted the preliminary investigation into the applicant and her co-accused. At the end of the hearing, the court rejected the applicant's request for release pending trial because of “the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the duration of the detention”.", "16. On 11 February 1998 the court decided to separate two of the applicant's co-accused's cases from the case-file and join them to other cases pending before other divisions of the Istanbul State Security Court. At the end of the hearing, the court ordered the applicant's continued detention having regard to “the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence, and the duration of detention”.", "17. At the hearing of 29 May 1998, the court showed the applicant photographs taken during the Mayday demonstration of 1 May 1996 by the police. The applicant accepted that she had participated in the demonstration and was in the photographs. At the same hearing the court rejected the applicant's request for release pending trial on the grounds previously stated.", "18. On 31 July 1998 the prosecution submitted their observations on the merits of the case, requesting that the applicant be punished for being a member of the MLKP. The court fixed fifteen days for the defence to submit their observations. At the end of the hearing it prolonged the applicant's detention on remand on the grounds of “the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence, and that the case was due to be decided upon”.", "19. The applicant did not attend the hearing of 30 September and 27 November 1998 of her own free will. The court issued a summons to the applicant in order that she submit her defence either in writing or in person at the subsequent hearings. It further decided to prolong the applicant's detention on remand due to “the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the duration of detention”.", "20. At the hearings of 17 February and 9 July 1999 the court noted that the information requested from Istanbul 7th Assize Court had not been sent. Accordingly, it repeated the earlier request. It further prolonged the applicant detention on the same grounds, namely “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the duration of detention”.", "21. At the hearings of 22 September and 1 December 1999 the court noted letters sent by the Istanbul 7th Assize Court, informing the trial court that the criminal proceedings brought against the police officers were still pending. The court issued letters to the Istanbul 7th Assize Court asking for new information concerning the outcome of the proceedings and requesting that a copy of the judgment be sent once delivered.", "22. On 11 February 2000 the applicant's lawyer referred to the case-law of the Court and requested that the applicant be released pending trial. This was rejected.", "23. On 21 April 2000 the court decided to re-issue the letter to the Istanbul 7th Assize Court.", "24. On 21 June 2000, the applicant's lawyer reminded the court that his client had been kept in detention for forty months, contrary to the Court's established case-law. The court decided to prolong the applicant's detention relying on “the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the duration of detention”.", "25. At the hearing of 18 April 2001 the court, with the dissenting opinion of a member of the panel, decided to prolong the applicant's detention on remand. The dissenting opinion read as follows:\n“I oppose the respectable majority's opinion which prolonged the duration of the detention, as the evidence against the defendants has all been collected in the case file, therefore there exists no danger of destroying it and that the duration of the detention which the defendants have already undergone is lengthy enough.”", "26. On 29 June 2001 the court decided to release the applicant due to ill-health.", "27. On 16 October 2002 the applicant was convicted of being a member of an illegal armed organisation and was sentenced to twelve years and six months' imprisonment.", "28. The applicant appealed against this judgment.", "29. On 15 January 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant's conviction on the ground that the State Security Court had delivered its judgment without awaiting and considering the outcome of the criminal proceedings before the Istanbul 7th Assize Court, concerning the police officers who conducted the preliminary investigation into the applicant and her co-defendants. The case-file was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for further examination.", "30. On 17 March 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court resumed the trial against the applicant. It consequently repeated its request to the Istanbul 7th Assize Court.", "31. Following the abolition of the Istanbul State Security Court, the case was transferred to the Istanbul 11th Assize Court, where it is still pending." ]	[ 2, 3 ]
[ "5. The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Istanbul.", "6. On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a set of enforcement proceedings against his debtors in order to enforce the payment of six bonds issued by his debtors between 1980 and 1981. The enforcement proceedings lasted for almost ten years. In 1993 the applicant was paid a sum of 54,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL), interest included.", "7. On 25 January 1994 the applicant brought an action before the Istanbul Commercial Court against his debtors and requested an additional compensation under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations, for the damage he sustained as a result of the delay in payment. He alleged that the payment was made with ten years of delay and that his loss resulting from the increase in inflation during this period exceeded the interest awarded to him for late payment.", "8. On 17 April 1995 an expert report was submitted to the court. The expert report stated that the applicant should not be awarded additional compensation on the ground that he was unable to substantiate the damages he sustained against inflation.", "9. On 5 October 1995 the Istanbul Commercial Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the reasons stated in the expert’s report. The applicant appealed.", "10. On 24 December 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the first- instance court’s decision on the ground that the applicant had sustained damages due to the delay in payment and that he should be awarded compensation. The case was remitted to the first instance court.", "11. On 29 September 1997 the first-instance court adhered to its first decision. The applicant appealed.", "12. On 3 November 1999 the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s decision. The applicant’s request for rectification was dismissed on 24 April 2000. This decision was served on the applicant on 24 May 2000." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "6. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.", "7. On 14 May 1990 the Bakirköy District Governorship granted the applicant a licence to serve alcohol in his restaurant.", "8. On an unspecified date, the quarter of Güngören, where the applicant’s restaurant was located, became a separate district. On 13 October 1997, the Güngören District Governorship revoked the applicant’s licence on the ground that the applicant’s restaurant was outside the designated area for restaurants serving alcohol.", "9. On 27 October 1997 the applicant was notified of this decision and was barred from running the restaurant.", "10. On 3 November 1997 the applicant brought an action before the Istanbul Administrative Court for the annulment of the Güngören District Governorship’s decision of 13 October 1997. He also requested that the decision be stayed.", "11. On 23 January 1998 the Istanbul Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for a stay of proceedings. The applicant objected to this decision. On 18 March 1998 the Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s challenge.", "12. On 11 June 1998 the Istanbul Administrative Court delivered its judgment on the merits of the case. The court decided that the revocation order of the Güngören District Governorship was in conformity with the law. The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court[1], and as a preliminary step, he once again requested the Supreme Administrative Court to stay the execution of the Governorship’s decision. On 12 November 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court decided on the request for a stay and rejected it.", "13. On 15 February 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.", "14. The applicant requested rectification of this decision. On 24 June 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request.", "15. On 15 August 2002 the applicant was notified of the Supreme Administrative Court’s final decision." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "5. The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Moscow.", "6. On 1 April 1996 the applicant retired from the position as a consultant at the Ministry of Finance of Russia.", "7. In 1996 – 1997 he repeatedly applied to the Ministry of Labour for additional retirement benefits due to former State employees. By decision of 3 October 1997 a deputy Minister granted the applicant’s request and increased his pension as of 9 September 1997.", "8. Thereafter the applicant sued the Ministry of Labour seeking arrears for the period between 1 April 1996 and 8 September 1997.", "9. On 19 December 1997 the Basmanny District Court of Moscow dismissed his claims, stating that the applicant had only become eligible for a higher pension as of 9 September 1997 and therefore he had no right to arrears.", "10. On 14 April 1998 the Moscow City Court set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.", "11. On 15 September 1999 the Basmanny District Court ruled in the applicant’s favour confirming his entitlement to additional retirement benefits as of 1 April 1996 and ordered the Ministry of Labour to re-calculate his pension.", "12. No appeal was lodged, and on an unspecified date the judgment of 15 September 1999 became final.", "13. On 25 November 1999 enforcement proceedings commenced.", "14. On 26 October 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General lodged an extraordinary appeal against the judgment of 15 September 1999.", "15. On 16 November 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court examined and rejected the extraordinary appeal in supervisory review proceedings, thus upholding the judgment of 15 September 1999.", "16. On 2 February 2001 a deputy Prosecutor General filed another extraordinary appeal against the judgment of 15 September 1999 and the decision of 16 November 2000.", "17. On 23 February 2001 the Civil Section of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 15 September 1999 and the decision of 16 November 2000, and remitted the case to the first instance court. It is not clear whether the applicant has pursued the proceedings.", "18. In 2001 – 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully applied for supervisory review of the decision of 23 February 2001.", "19. During the fresh examination, on 27 February 2003, the Basmanny District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.", "20. On 30 July 2003 the applicant appealed against the above judgment.", "21. By decision of 29 August 2003 the Basmanny District Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal brief as having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit of ten days." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "6. The applicants, who were born in 1964, 1941, 1963, 1958, 1963, 1978, 1977, 1977, 1964, 1960, 1949, 1978, 1973, 1979, 1970, 1961, 1966, 1968 and 1961 respectively, live in Adıyaman.", "7. Nine of the applicants, namely Bedir Çetin, Hüseyin Duran, İsmail Minkara, Hacı Pamuk, Abuzer Aslan, Şükrü Karadağ, Rıza Kılınç, Ramazan Sertkaya and Muhammet Emin Toprak, were the regional administrators of the HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi- People’s Democracy Party) in the province of Adıyaman.", "8. The rest of the applicants are the relatives of prisoners who were convicted of being members of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK at the time of occurrence of the below mentioned events.", "9. Following the capture of Abdullah Öcalan in Italy, prisoners who were convicted of being members of the PKK went on a hunger strike in several prisons. Some of these prisoners set themselves on fire in protest at the arrest.", "10. On 16 December 1998, eleven of the applicants, namely Gülseren Öner, Hüseyin Duran, İsmail Turap, Fatma Doymaz, Nazife Bilgiç, Sakine Doymaz, Hüseyin Aslan, Fatma Dolaş, Arzu Doymaz, Hasan Gül and Sakine Sürgülü gathered in the Adıyaman regional office of HADEP and started a collective hunger strike in protest at the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan.", "11. On 19 December 1998 the Adıyaman Public Prosecutor issued a search warrant in respect of the Adıyaman regional office of HADEP. On the same day the police conducted a search of the Adıyaman regional office of HADEP. According to the arrest report of the same date, the police arrested forty-five people including the applicants, who were present in the office when the search was taking place except Hüseyin Duran.", "12. The arrest report, that was signed by the arrested persons including the applicants, revealed that publications of a separatist nature and flags of the PKK were found in the regional office of HADEP.", "13. On 21 November 1998 the applicants Bedir Çetin, Muhammet Emin Toprak, İsmail Minkara and Hüseyin Aslan were tried before the Adıyaman Civil Court for participating in and organising meetings with the aim of disseminating separatist propaganda. The court ordered that the applicants be released pending trial on the same day.", "14. On 31 December 1998 the Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Malatya State Security Court accusing the applicants of aiding the members of a terrorist organisation and requested that they be convicted under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.", "15. On 6 May 1999 the Malatya State Security Court, considering as evidence the publications of separatist nature and flags of the PKK which had been found in the office, convicted the applicants of aiding a terrorist organisation pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code and sentenced each of them to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.", "16. On 12 April 2000 the applicants appealed against this decision. On 15 May 2000 the Court of Cassation, in a public hearing, upheld the decision of the State Security Court." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "8. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Borovichi in the Novgorod Region.", "9. On 7 May 1999 the prosecutor’s office of the Borovichi District began an investigation into the applicant’s dealings, as it suspected him of using his position as the president of a non-governmental organisation for personal gain. It was alleged, in particular, that he had used a grant of 5,000 US dollars (USD) to purchase computer equipment which he had kept at his home or, in the alternative, unlawfully given to a local law office.", "10. On 13 October 1999 the prosecutor charged the applicant and issued an arrest warrant when he failed to attend the prosecutor’s office to countersign the charge sheet.", "11. On 1 February 2000 a supervising prosecutor of the Novgorod Region quashed the decision to charge the applicant and cancelled the warrant. She found that the investigation was incomplete because pertinent facts had not been sufficiently examined.", "12. On 9 February 2000 the Borovichi Criminal Police put the applicant’s name on the federal list of wanted persons.", "13. On 20 March 2000 the applicant was charged again.", "14. On 10 April 2000 a senior investigator from the Investigations Division of the Novgorod Regional Police dropped the charges against the applicant because there was no evidence that a criminal offence had been committed. On 4 May 2000 that decision was notified to the applicant’s lawyer.", "15. At 9.50 p.m. on 14 June 2000 the applicant was detained in the Izmaylovo Hotel in Moscow on the basis of the arrest warrant issued on 13 October 1999 because his name was still on the federal list of wanted persons.", "16. The applicant remained at the police station for twelve hours, until 10 a.m. on 15 June 2000. He was interrogated, searched and allegedly verbally abused by police officers. He was released only after the Novgorod Regional Police had confirmed, by a faxed letter, that the arrest warrant had been cancelled.", "17. The officer in command at the police station refused to issue the applicant with a document confirming that he had been detained for twelve hours.", "18. At 8.30 p.m. on 6 July 2000 the applicant was detained in Moscow on the basis of the same arrest warrant. He was handcuffed and escorted to the “Rostokino” Police Station of the North-Western Administrative District of Moscow.", "19. According to the applicant, he was verbally abused by three police officers, one of whom also hit him in the chest. His requests for permission to make a phone call and to meet the officer in charge were ignored.", "20. The applicant was not released until 6.15 p.m. on 7 July 2000, after confirmation had been received that the warrant had been cancelled. According to the applicant, during the entire period he spent in detention he received no water or food and was given no access to toilet facilities.", "21. On 18 June 2000 the applicant complained to the Head of the Moscow Police and the Izmaylovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office. On 5 July 2000 the applicant complained to the Moscow City Prosecutor that he had been unlawfully detained and that the district prosecutor had failed to respond to his complaints. On 15 August 2000 he complained to the Prosecutor General about his unlawful detention in July 2000.", "22. On 17 August 2000 a deputy director of the Operative Investigations Division of the Moscow Police informed the applicant that his detention on 14 June 2000 was considered lawful as he had been on the federal list of wanted persons. Since the applicant had not had any documents on him to show that the charges had been dropped, the police officers “had taken all appropriate measures to confirm or refute [his] statement about the unlawfulness of [his] detention”.", "23. On 18 September 2000 a deputy director of the Public Security Division of the Moscow Police confirmed to the applicant that he had been detained because his name was on the federal list of wanted persons. He maintained that the Moscow police officers had acted lawfully and that on both occasions responsibility for his detention lay with the Novgorod Regional Police as they had failed to update the database of wanted persons in time.", "24. On 4 September 2000 the director of the Operative Investigations Division of the Moscow Police advised the applicant that the Borovichi Police Department was responsible for placing people’s names on, and removing them from, the wanted persons’ list.", "25. On 25 September 2000 a deputy prosecutor of the Izmaylovskiy District of Moscow wrote to the applicant to say that the blame for his detention lay with the Novgorod Regional police officers who had failed to remove his name from the wanted persons’ list. He added that the Moscow Police had acted lawfully on the basis of the information available.", "26. On 31 October 2000 a deputy prosecutor of the Novgorod Region informed the applicant that his name had been deleted from the wanted persons’ list on 5 May 2000 and that notice thereof had been sent to the central database of the Ministry of the Interior on 16 May 2000. However, an investigator, Ms Romanova, had failed to notify the Borovichi Police Department that the arrest warrant had been cancelled on 1 February 2000, and it was that which had led to the applicant’s detention in Moscow and Lipetsk and the violations of his constitutional rights. The deputy prosecutor said that he had requested the director of the Investigations Department of the Novgorod Regional Police to examine the matter and to discipline those responsible for the violations of the applicant’s rights.", "27. On 20 October 2000 a deputy director of the Internal Investigations Department of the Novgorod Regional Police wrote to inform the applicant that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the investigator who had failed to notify those concerned in time that the arrest warrant had been cancelled.", "28. On 7 December 2000 an acting prosecutor of the Novgorod Region informed the applicant that Ms Romanova had been reprimanded for unspecified violations of the rules of criminal procedure.", "29. After the application had been communicated to the respondent Government, the Ostankinskiy Interdistrict Prosecutor’s Office carried out an inquiry into the applicant’s complaints of 2000. On 29 March 2004 it issued a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with his allegations of ill-treatment because there was no evidence of criminal conduct by any of the police officers. On 20 April 2004 the Moscow City Prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered a further inquiry.", "30. According to the Government, further to a recommendation (представление) issued on 20 August 2004 by the Ostankinskiy Interdistrict Prosecutor’s Office, the Information Centre of the Ministry of the Interior reinforced the procedures for ensuring that the federal list of wanted persons was regularly updated.", "31. In early 2001 the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior. He claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in connection with the unlawful criminal proceedings and arrest.", "32. On 29 August 2001 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow requested the “Rostokino” police station to provide the papers relating to the applicant’s detention on 6-7 July 2000, including the records of his arrest and body search and an extract from the custody record. It does not appear that the requested documents were provided.", "33. On 18 September 2001 the Basmanniy District Court delivered judgment. It found that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been unlawful because they were ultimately discontinued for lack of evidence of a criminal offence. Having regard to the fact that “[the applicant] had given an undertaking not to leave the town and had not actually been taken into custody”, the District Court awarded him 3,000 Russian roubles (RUR, 110 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It further awarded him RUR 14,976 for legal costs incurred in the criminal proceedings and RUR 462.14 for costs in the civil proceedings. The total amount came to RUR 18,438.14 (approximately EUR 675). The remainder of the applicant’s claims were dismissed.", "34. The applicant appealed against the judgment. He complained, in particular, that the District Court had deliberately given an incomplete account of the circumstances of the case and that his claims for compensation for unlawful detention in June and July 2000 had not been considered in the judgment.", "35. On 16 January 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 18 September 2001. It held that the applicant had not advanced any new arguments other than those that had been already examined by the District Court.", "36. On 20 January 2002 the applicant applied to the Basmanniy District Court for a writ of execution. Having received no reply, he wrote to the president of the court and to the Moscow City Prosecutor on 7 March, 15 May and 19 June 2002 to complain about the delay.", "37. On 27 May 2002 the President of the Basmanniy District Court replied to the applicant, advising him that the writ had been sent to the court bailiffs on 18 March 2002 for enforcement.", "38. On 19 June 2002 the applicant received a writ of execution for RUR 17,976. On 26 and 27 June 2002 he complained to the Presidents of the Basmanniy District Court and the Moscow City Court that the amount in the writ was less than the award in the judgment.", "39. On 26 June 2002 the applicant requested the President of the Basmanniy District Court to rectify the error in the writ. He repeated his request on 29 July 2002, but to no avail, and so on 2 September 2002 sent a complaint to the Moscow City Court.", "40. On 16 July 2002 the applicant sent the writ of execution for RUR 17,976 to the court bailiffs.", "41. By a letter of 24 September 2002, the President of the Basmanniy District Court confirmed that the writ had been sent to the court bailiffs on 18 March 2002.", "42. On 22 November 2002 the bailiffs’ service of Interdistrict Office no. 2 of Moscow returned the writ for RUR 17,976 to the applicant, advising him to submit it directly to the Ministry of Finance.", "43. Having received no response to his requests for rectification of the amount stated in the writ, the applicant renewed his request to the Basmanniy District Court to that effect on 19 September 2003 and returned the writ containing the error.", "44. On 9, 10 and 15 February and 3 and 20 March 2004 the applicant wrote to the President of the Supreme Court, the Moscow City Prosecutor and the Basmanniy District Prosecutor to complain about the Basmanniy District Court’s persistent refusal to rectify the writ.", "45. On 10 April 2004 the applicant received by post a writ of execution for RUR 18,446.54 dated 30 March 2004. On 16 April 2004 he submitted it to the Ministry of Finance for execution.", "46. In a letter of 14 April 2004, the Supreme Court claimed that on 15 October 2003 a corrected writ of execution had been sent to the court bailiffs’ service.", "47. By a letter of 6 May 2004, the Moscow Main Directorate of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the bailiffs’ service had searched its records since 1 January 2002 and had no trace of receiving a writ of execution for RUR 18,446.54.", "48. On 15 March 2004 the applicant requested the Basmanniy District Court to adjust the award in the judgment of 18 September 2001 in line with inflation. On 24 November 2004 the court granted his claim in part, awarding him RUR 6,269 on account of inflation and RUR 6,000 in legal costs.", "49. On 25 November 2004 the Ministry of Finance returned the writ to the applicant, saying that it was defective.", "50. On 16 December 2004 the Basmanniy District Court issued a new writ and submitted it directly to the Ministry of Finance. In his letter to the applicant, the court president acknowledged that the previously issued writs had not conformed to the law on enforcement proceedings.", "51. At the date of the last communication from the applicant of 27 February 2005, the judgment of 18 September 2001, as supplemented by the judgment of 24 November 2004, had not yet been enforced." ]	[ 2, 3, 9 ]
[ "8. The applicant was born in 1961. At the time the application was lodged he lived in Erlenbach in Germany. He currently resides in Swidnica in Poland.", "9. The applicant immigrated to Germany in February 1987. His request for asylum was rejected. His expulsion was, however, suspended under the agreement of the Home Secretaries of the Länder not to expel Polish nationals (“Ostblockbeschlüsse” der Innenminister der Länder). In November 1989 the applicant obtained a provisional residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis). In January 1991, following an amendment of the Aliens Act, he was issued with a limited residence title for exceptional purposes (Aufenthaltsbefugnis). This residence title was renewed every two years, the last time in January 1995 until January 1997. In April 1997 the applicant obtained an unlimited residence permit (Aufenthaltsberechtigung).", "10. In July 1995 the applicant’s daughter was born.", "11. On 28 July 1995 the applicant applied to the Aschaffenburg Labour Office (Arbeitsamt) for child benefits according to Section 1 of the Federal Child Benefits Act (Bundeskindergeldgesetz, see relevant domestic law below).", "12. On 18 August 1995 the Labour Office dismissed the applicant’s request under Section 1 § 3 of the Child Benefits Act. It noted that the applicant only had a limited residence title for exceptional purposes, and no unlimited residence permit or provisional residence permit, as required under Section 1 § 3.", "13. On 12 October 1995 the Federal Labour Office (Bundesanstalt für Arbeit) rejected his objection.", "14. The applicant lodged an action with the Würzburg Social Court (Sozialgericht), claiming that he had been residing in Germany since 1987 and that he should, therefore, have the right to child benefits.", "15. On 21 April 1997 the Social Court dismissed the applicant’s action regarding child benefits between July 1995 and April 1997. It confirmed that only aliens with an unlimited residence permit or with a provisional residence permit were entitled to the payment of child benefits under Section 1 § 3 of the Child Benefits Act, as in force until 31 December 1995. According to the Social Court, the legislature had only intended to grant child benefits to aliens who were likely to stay in Germany on a permanent basis. Aliens with only a limited residence title for exceptional purposes were, however, not likely to stay. The court further pointed out that this distinction did not violate the German Basic Law. In the present case, the legislature had remained within its wide margin of appreciation in social law matters.", "16. On 23 April 1998 the Bavarian Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht) dismissed the applicant’s appeal to the extent that his claims under the Child Benefits Act until 31 December 1995 were concerned. The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s reasoning, noting that the applicant did not have a stable residence permit in 1995, as his limited residence title for exceptional purposes had had to be renewed every two years. Likewise, referring to the wide margin of appreciation of the legislature, it took the view that Section 1 § 3 of the Federal Child Benefits Act was compatible with the Basic Law. In this respect, it considered that until December 1995 families had benefited from child benefits and tax deductions (Kinderfreibetrag) as a system of compensation (dualer Familienlastenausgleich). The applicant and his wife had paid taxes in 1995 but had not obtained child benefits. In the court’s view, this taxation, not the refusal of child benefits, might have violated the Basic Law; however, it was not for the social courts to decide on that matter.", "17. On 18 March 1999 the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.", "18. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint combined with a request for an interim measure. He claimed that the relevant provision of the Federal Child Benefits Act was discriminatory and racist, and violated his right to respect for his family life. In addition, he alleged that the refusal of his request for child benefits infringed the principle of social justice (Sozialstaatsprinzip) laid down in Article 20 § 4 of the Basic Law.", "19. On 21 October 1999 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to entertain his complaint and rejected his request for an interim measure.", "20. On 3 July 2001 the Würzburg Social Court decided that it was not competent to deal with the applicant’s claims regarding child benefits for the period after 1 January 1996 and transferred the proceedings to the Nuremberg Tax Court (Finanzgericht). The proceedings before the Tax Court are still pending." ]	[ 8, 4 ]
[ "8. The applicants were born in 1946 and 1947 respectively and live in Dortmund in Germany.", "9. In 1985, the applicants, a married couple, immigrated to Germany with their daughter, born in 1979. Their son, born in 1970, joined them in 1986.", "10. In 1987 their request to be recognised as immigrants of German origin (Vertriebene) was rejected. The applicants' request to reopen the proceedings was rejected on 5 November 1992 by the Münster Administrative Court of Appeal (Oberverwaltungsgericht). The same day the applicants were issued with residence titles for exceptional purposes (Aufenthaltsbefugnis) which have been regularly renewed.", "11. On 27 December 1993 the Dortmund Labour Office (Arbeitsamt) informed the first applicant, who had received child benefits (Kindergeld) since 1986, that as from 1 January 1994 the child benefits would no longer be paid following a change in legislation. The office noted that according to Section 1 § 3 of the Federal Child Benefits Act (Bundeskindergeldgesetz, see relevant domestic law below), as amended and in force as from 1 January 1994, a foreigner was only entitled to child benefits if in possession of a residence permit (Aufenthaltsberechtigung) or a provisional residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis). The office noted that this condition was not met in the applicants' case.", "12. On 25 March 1994 the Federal Labour Office (Bundesanstalt für Arbeit) rejected the first applicant's objection.", "13. The first applicant, assisted by counsel, lodged an action with the Dortmund Social Court (Sozialgericht) with the aim to be granted child benefits from January 1994 onwards. He claimed that he and his family had been residing in Germany since 1985 and had been paying tax and social contributions. He should, therefore, continue to be entitled to the child benefits.", "14. On 27 March 1995 the Social Court dismissed the first applicant's action. It confirmed that only aliens with an unlimited or a provisional residence permit were entitled to the payment of child benefits. The new legislation had only intended to grant child benefits to aliens living in Germany on a permanent basis, whereas aliens with only a limited residence title for exceptional purposes were not likely to stay. The court further pointed out that this distinction did not violate the German Basic Law as had been stated by the Federal Social Court in several judgments since 1992. As to the special protection of the family provided under Article 6 of the German Basic Law, the court held that this did not prevent the State from subjecting the payment of child benefits to the type of the residence title.", "15. On 14 June 1995 the first applicant, assisted by counsel, lodged an appeal with the North Rhine-Westphalia Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht).", "16. On 2 May 1997 the Social Court of Appeal informed the first applicant that it had referred five pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) for review of Section 1 § 3 of the Child Benefits Acts, and asked him whether he would agree to a suspension of his appeal proceedings until a decision had been given by the Constitutional Court. On 20 May 1997 the Social Court of Appeal, having obtained the parties' agreement, ordered the suspension of the proceedings.", "17. By decision of 6 July 2004 in the pilot cases (1 BvL 4/97, 1 BvL 5/97, 1 BvL 6/97), the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that section 1 § 3 of the Child Benefits Act as effective from January 1994 until December 1995 was incompatible with the right to equal treatment under Article 3 § 1 of the Basic Law. Accordingly, the legislator was ordered to amend the law by 1 January 2006.", "18. The Federal Constitutional Court found, in particular, that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residence permit lacked sufficient justification. As the granting of child benefits related to the protection of family life under Article 6 § 1 of the Basic Law, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward to justify unequal treatment. Such reasons were not apparent. In so far as the provision was aimed at limiting the granting of child benefits to those aliens who where likely to stay permanently in Germany, the criteria applied were inappropriate to reach that aim. The fact that a person was in possession of a limited residence title did not form a sufficient basis to predict the duration of his or her stay in Germany. The Constitutional Court did not discern any other reasons justifying the unequal treatment.", "19. On 27 December 2004, following the first applicant's request, the Social Court of Appeal resumed the proceedings. On 9 March 2005 the Social Court of Appeal, with the parties' consent, once again suspended proceedings pending the amendment of the applicable legislation.", "20. In 2000 the first applicant lodged a motion with the Munster Tax Court (Finanzgericht) with the aim to be granted child benefits from January 1996 onwards according to the provisions of the Income Tax Act (Einkommensteuergesetz, see relevant domestic law below). On 6 May 2004 the Tax Court rejected the motion. The first applicant did not lodge an appeal." ]	[ 8, 4 ]
[ "5. The applicants were born in 1928 and 1930 respectively. The second applicant lives in Belgorod.", "6. The applicants received old-age pensions.", "7. In 1999 the applicants sued the Pension Fund Agency of Belgorod (“the Agency”) alleging that their pensions had been calculated in breach of a scheme for the calculation of retirement benefits – the “Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”) – introduced by the Pensions Law of 1997. The applicants maintained that they were entitled to an IPC of 0.7, whilst the Agency only applied an IPC of 0.525.", "8. On 27 May 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod (“the Oktyabrskiy District Court”) dismissed the applicants’ claims as unfounded.", "9. On 27 July 1999 the Civil Section of the Belgorod Regional Court (“the Belgorod Regional Court”) set aside the above judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination.", "10. On 23 September 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court found in the applicants’ favour. It held that the Agency had misinterpreted the Pensions Law and that the IPC to be applied in the applicants’ case should be 0.7. The court ordered the Agency to increase the applicants’ pension by RUR 642.84 and awarded them arrears of RUR 3,222.6.", "11. On 16 November 1999 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, and the judgment of 23 September 1999 became final.", "12. On 3 December 1999 enforcement proceedings commenced.", "13. On 13 January 2000 the Agency requested the court to suspend the enforcement pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Russia concerning similar pension cases.", "14. On 14 February 2000 the Western Circuit Court of Belgorod (Федеральный суд Западного округа г. Белгорода, “the Western Circuit Court”) dismissed the request, having established no grounds for suspending the enforcement.", "15. On an unspecified date the Agency filed a new request to postpone the execution of the judgment of 23 September 1999. On 17 March 2000 the Western Circuit Court granted the request.", "16. On 18 April 2000, upon the order of the same court, the enforcement proceedings were resumed.", "17. On an unspecified date the Agency again applied for a stay of the enforcement, referring to the lack of funds. On 19 June 2000 the Western Circuit Court rejected this request as groundless.", "18. On 29 June 2000 the acting President of the Belgorod Regional Court ordered a stay of enforcement, as on an unspecified date an extraordinary appeal had been brought against the judgment of 23 September 1999.", "19. On 29 September 2000 the President of the Belgorod Regional Court set aside the above order, following the withdrawal of the extraordinary appeal. The enforcement proceedings re-commenced.", "20. On 19 May 2000 the Agency filed an application to re-consider the judgment of 23 September 1999 on account of newly-discovered circumstances. It stated that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour had passed an instruction clarifying the application of the Pensions Law which had gone against the interpretation of that law by the courts in the applicants’ case. The Agency maintained that it had been unaware of these circumstances when the judgment of 23 September 1999 had been given and, therefore, the judgment should be re-considered.", "21. On 15 June 2000 the Western Circuit Court of Belgorod disallowed the Agency’s application, having noted that the instruction in question was not newly-discovered evidence within the meaning of the domestic law.", "22. On 10 October 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court overturned the decision of 15 June 2000 on appeal and remitted the case for a new consideration.", "23. On 2 November 2000 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court set aside the decision of 10 October 2000, referring to a number of procedural irregularities and remitted the case to the appeal instance.", "24. During a new examination, on 21 November 2000, the Belgorod Regional Court again quashed the decision of 15 June 2000 and ordered the first instance to consider the case afresh.", "25. On an unspecified date the President of the Belgorod Regional Court lodged an extraordinary appeal against the decision of 27 July 1999, the judgment of 23 September 1999, the decision of 16 November 1999 and the decision of 21 November 2000.", "26. On 1 February 2001 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court, having examined the extraordinary appeal in the supervisory review proceedings, quashed the aforementioned decisions and judgment and upheld the judgment of 27 May 1999 and the decision of 15 June 2000, thus reinstating the applicants’ IPC at 0.525 and annulling the previously awarded increase as well as the arrears.", "27. On an unspecified date the applicants filed a claim against the Belgorod Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage for the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment of 23 September 1999 within a reasonable time.", "28. On 5 April 2001 the Eastern Circuit Court of Belgorod (Федеральный суд Восточного округа г. Белгорода) rejected the action. The court found that the delays in the enforcement proceedings had not been imputable to the bailiffs.", "29. On 5 June 2001 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld this judgment on appeal." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1961. At the time the application was lodged he lived in Lörrach in Germany. He is currently residing in Turkey.", "5. In 1972 the applicant, aged ten years, entered German territory in order to live there with his parents and his brother. He attended secondary school until 1977. In 1984 the applicant married a Turkish national in Turkey. In 1986 a son was born to the couple. On 14 March 1988 the competent authorities granted the applicant a permanent residence permit. In 1989 the applicant’s wife and son followed him to Germany. In 1990, 1991 and 1993 three further sons were born to the couple. One of the children has a learning handicap. The applicant’s wife is in possession of a permanent residence permit; all family members are Turkish nationals.", "6. In 1983 the applicant – in view of previous convictions – was warned and informed that he would face expulsion if he committed further criminal offences (ausländerrechtliche Verwarnung).", "7. On 14 February 1989 the Lörrach District Court (Amtsgericht) convicted the applicant of insulting behaviour and ordered him to pay fifteen daily rates of DEM 50.", "8. On 3 June 1991 the District Court convicted the applicant of negligent drunken driving (fahrlässige Trunkenheit im Verkehr) and ordered him to pay thirty daily rates of DEM 60.", "9. On 17 August 1992 the District Court convicted the applicant of inflicting bodily harm and of obstructing public officers in the execution of their duties and ordered him to pay forty daily rates of DEM 30.", "10. On 27 October 1993 the District Court convicted the applicant of reckless driving (Gefährdung des Straßenverkehrs) and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation.", "11. On 25 September 1995 the District Court convicted the applicant of inflicting bodily harm and ordered him to pay thirty daily rates of DEM 15.", "12. On 22 October 1996 the District Court convicted the applicant of negligent drunken driving and sentenced him to five months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation.", "13. On 11 February 1998 the District Court convicted the applicant of drunken driving in conjunction with driving without a driving license and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.", "14. On 6 May 1998 the Freiburg Regional Court (Landgericht) rejected the applicant’s appeal in which he had asked that the execution of his sentence be suspended on probation. According to the Regional Court, the applicant’s numerous convictions did not seem to have served as warnings not to commit further criminal offences, having particular regard to the fact that the applicant had committed his last offence only three months after his previous conviction had acquired legal effect.", "15. On 17 September 1998 the applicant was arrested and imprisoned. As his last offence had been committed while he was still on probation after the decision of the District Court of 22 October 1996, the suspension on probation was revoked and the applicant was imprisoned for four further months.", "16. On 9 November 1998 the Lörrach District Court convicted the applicant of recklessly placing himself in a state of total intoxication (fahrlässiger Vollrausch) and sentenced him to a fine of forty daily rates.", "17. On 22 January 1999 the Freiburg Regional Government (Regierungspräsidium) ordered the applicant’s expulsion to Turkey or to another State willing to accept him. Applying sections 47 § 2 and 48 § 1 of the Aliens Act (Ausländergesetz, see relevant domestic law below), it noted the applicant’s repeated criminal convictions, in particular those for traffic offences. The Regional Government found that the applicant’s criminal conduct had caused a serious threat for public safety. It further considered that there was a risk that he would commit similar offences in the future, as neither his previous convictions nor several warnings by the aliens’ authorities had deterred him from committing further offences. Moreover, the applicant had not solved his alcohol problem, but had dropped out of therapy. The Regional Government further argued that the applicant, on account of his age, would manage his integration in Turkey. His family could be reasonably expected to follow him as his children could be assumed to have sufficient knowledge of the Turkish culture and language. Exercising its discretion and with regard to Article 8 of the Convention, the Government found that the public interest in the applicant’s expulsion outweighed his own and his family’s interests, given the seriousness of the threat which he posed to public road traffic.", "18. On 11 February 1999 the Regional Government rejected the applicant’s objection.", "19. On 20 April 1999 the Freiburg Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) refused to grant the applicant an interim order against his expulsion and confirmed the reasoning of the Regional Government. It found that the Regional Government’s decision was likely to be upheld in the main proceedings. The four traffic offences committed by the applicant since 1989, taken together with his further criminal convictions, constituted a serious reason justifying expulsion. The Administrative Court found, in particular, that the applicant’s offences could not be regarded as being of a minor nature, taking into account the high importance of the safety of road traffic within society. The court further confirmed that there was a danger of recidivism, because the applicant had not proved that he had overcome his alcohol problem. It finally found that the Regional Government duly considered the applicant’s family situation. Having regard to the considerable danger the applicant posed for other road users and to the fact that his family could live with him in Turkey, the expulsion did not violate the applicant’s right to the enjoyment of his family life as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Basic Law and by Article 8 of the Convention.", "20. On 2 November 1999 the Freiburg Administrative Court confirmed the expulsion order, referring mainly to its reasoning in the decision of 20 April 1999.", "21. On 8 December 1999 the applicant requested to be granted leave to appeal, arguing, in particular, that the expulsion violated his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.", "22. On 28 May 2001 the Baden-Württemberg Administrative Court of Appeal (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal, confirming that there was no apparent violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court of Appeal found, in particular, that the applicant’s family could be reasonably expected to follow him to Turkey, as they could be assumed to have sufficient knowledge of the Turkish language. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 6 June 2001.", "23. By letter and fax dated 4 July 2001 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged a constitutional complaint, in which he gave a complete account of the proceedings before the domestic authorities and complained that his expulsion would violate his right to respect for his family life as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Basic Law.", "24. By letter of 13 July 2001 the Federal Constitutional Court acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s complaint and attachments on 5 July 2001 by fax and on 7 July 2001 by mail.", "25. On 15 February 2002 the Federal Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, refused to accept the applicant’s constitutional complaint for adjudication, without giving any further reasons. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 28 February 2002.", "26. On 3 May 1999 the applicant was deported to Turkey. On 21 May 1999 he re-entered German territory and filed a request to be granted asylum.", "27. According to the Government’s submissions, by penal order of 11 May 2001 the Lörrach District Court sentenced the applicant to a fine of twenty daily rates for having driven without a license on 23 March 2001.", "28. On 16 May 2002 the applicant filed a request to set a time-limit on the effects of his expulsion.", "29. On 23 August 2002 the Freiburg Regional Government informed him that the proceedings had been suspended pending proceedings on his asylum request.", "30. On 15 May 2003, his asylum request having been rejected, an attempt to deport the applicant failed because the latter had gone into hiding. On 4 July 2003 the applicant was arrested and placed in detention pending his deportation. He was once again deported to Turkey on 12 August 2003.", "31. On 19 December 2003 the applicant filed a second request to set a time-limit on the effects of his deportation of 12 August 2003. On 30 January 2004 the Freiburg Regional Government requested the applicant to submit a confirmation of registration with the Turkish authorities and an extract from the Turkish criminal records register. He was further informed about the costs of the two deportations (approximately EUR 8,000). No decision has so far been given on the applicant’s request." ]	[ 4 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1952 and stays in a custodial clinic in the Netherlands.", "5. On 15 June 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand on suspicion of having attacked two persons. Criminal proceedings were subsequently taken against him.", "6. In its judgment of 21 October 1996, the Amsterdam Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) found the applicant guilty of attempted homicide and assault. Finding further that at the material time the applicant was suffering from an inadequate development and pathological disturbance of his mental faculties, the Regional Court concluded that he could not be held criminally responsible. However, as he had been found guilty of two violent crimes in that he had twice attacked a passer-by for no reason and had already been convicted many times in the past of crimes of violence, and given that expert reports had concluded that he was a potentially very dangerous individual who would probably re-offend, the Regional Court decided that the general safety of the public required that an order for the applicant’s confinement in a custodial clinic (terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege; “TBS order”) be imposed.", "7. On 5 November 1996, no appeal having been filed, this judgment became final and the TBS order took effect. Pending his admission to a custodial clinic, the applicant was held in pre-placement detention in an ordinary remand centre (huis van bewaring).", "8. On 21 September 1998 the public prosecutor filed a request with the Amsterdam Regional Court for a two year extension of the applicant’s TBS order, which was due to expire on 5 November 1998.", "9. On 9 November 1998, following a hearing on that day and after having noted the parties’ submissions and an expert opinion drawn up on 4 September 1998, as required by Article 509o § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering; “CCP”), recommending a two-year prolongation of the applicant’s TBS order as the applicant’s condition had remained the same as in 1996, the Amsterdam Regional Court decided to extend this order for a further period of two years.", "10. On 8 December 1998, the Netherlands State and the applicant concluded an amicable settlement agreement (vaststellingsovereenkomst) in which the applicant waived all rights or claims relating to the time spent in pre-placement detention in excess of six months and granted the State a final discharge in this matter in exchange for financial compensation according to specific modalities set out in this agreement.", "11. On 16 November 1998 the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 9 November 1998 was recorded at the Registry of the Amsterdam Regional Court. Pursuant to Article 509x § 1 of the CCP, such an appeal must be determined as soon as possible (“zo spoedig mogelijk”).", "12. On 25 March 1999 the applicant was admitted to a custodial clinic. In accordance with the terms of the amicable settlement agreement of 8 December 1998, he was paid compensation in a total amount of 42,860 Netherlands guilders (“NLG”).", "13. On 29 October 1999, the applicant’s lawyer requested the Regional Court to inform him of the date on which the applicant’s case file had been transmitted to the Arnhem Court of Appeal (gerechtshof). He sent reminders of this request to the Regional Court on 23 November and 22 December 1999, and on 6 January 2000.", "14. By letter of 18 April 2000, the applicant’s lawyer informed the President of the Arnhem Court of Appeal that he had been informed by the Regional Court’s Registry in a telephone conversation of 11 January 2000 that the applicant’s case file had not yet been transmitted to the Court of Appeal and that the matter would be looked into. He further informed the President that this case file had apparently now reached the Court of Appeal.", "15. In its decision of 22 May 2000, following a hearing held on 8 May 2000, the Arnhem Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 9 November 1998 and, on a different basis, decided to prolong the applicant’s TBS order by two years. It rejected the applicant’s argument that the public prosecutor’s request for prolongation should be declared inadmissible or that the requested prolongation should be mitigated on the ground that Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. It held that there had been an undesirable delay in processing the applicant’s appeal and that this delay was imputable to the Amsterdam Regional Court given its failure, apparently as a result of a mistake, to transmit the applicant’s case file without delay to the Court of Appeal. However, in view of the length of the delay, the nature of the TBS order and weighing all relevant interests involved, the Court of Appeal saw no reason to declare the public prosecutor’s request inadmissible. In balancing all the relevant interests, the Court of Appeal took into account, on the one hand, the applicant’s interest in having a speedy decision and his right to be protected against arbitrariness and, on the other, the interests of society in a prolongation of the TBS order. As regards the latter consideration, it had particular regard to the fact that the applicant still required treatment and to the seriousness of the offences committed by him on which basis the TBS order had been imposed. No further appeal lay against this decision.", "16. On 29 August 2000, the applicant’s lawyer wrote to the Arnhem Court of Appeal, requesting a copy of the official record of the hearing of 8 May 2000.", "17. By letter of 13 September 2000, the President of the bench of the Arnhem Court of Appeal that had determined the applicant’s appeal informed the applicant’s lawyer that, in cases like that of the applicant’s, no formal record was drawn up of hearings, this not being felt necessary as no appeal could be filed against such rulings. However, the essence of what had been discussed during the oral proceedings was reflected in the wording of the decision and not only what had been decisive for the ruling. This had also been done in the decision taken on the applicant’s appeal." ]	[ 2 ]
[ "7. The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Vienna. It is the owner and publisher of the weekly magazine Profil.", "8. In November 1998 Profil published a one-page article with the heading “Antifa-Terror!” and subtitled “A political book. Member of the European Parliament for the Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs), Mr S., settles his account with anti-fascists in a new book.”\nThe book at issue with the title “The Antifa-Complex” was described as being not only critical but rather provocative. The book review criticised Mr S. for settling accounts with “post-war leftists” (“Nachkriegs-Linke”), while\n“S. did not find similar critical words as regards Jörg Haider. He even pardoned his [Haider's] belittlement of the concentration camps as 'punishment camps'. Haider's opponents had also employed nazi-terminology by using the term 'extermination camp'.\n(German)\nÜber Haider findet S. übrigens an keiner Stelle seines Buches ähnlich kritische Worte. Sogar dessen Verharmlosung der Konzentrationslager als 'Straflager' sieht er ihm nach. Haiders Gegner hätten mit dem Ausdruck 'Vernichtungslager' ebenfalls NS-Begriffe verwendet.”", "9. On 29 December 1998 Mr Haider filed a compensation claim under the Media Act (Mediengesetz) with the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court (Landesgericht) against the applicant company.", "10. On 28 July 1999 the Regional Court ordered the applicant company to pay 50,000 Austrian schillings (ATS – approximately 3,633 euros) as compensation to Mr Haider and to publish its judgment. Moreover it ordered the forfeiture of the issue of Profil, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Media Act. It also ordered the applicant to reimburse Mr Haider's procedural costs.", "11. The court noted in its reasoning that the above passage gave the impression to an average reader of Profil that Jörg Haider had played down the extent of crimes committed in concentration camps when using the term punishment camps, and that he had thereby infringed Sections 3g and 3h of the National Socialism Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz). The reproach of a criminal offence was capable of slurring Mr Haider or of lowering him in public esteem and therefore constituted defamation (üble Nachrede) under Section 111 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). Therefore Section 6 of the Media Act applied in the applicant company's case. It was unnecessary to determine whether the impugned passage constituted a value judgment or a statement of fact, as the applicant company had failed to give any factual background for its reproach. While it was true that Mr Haider, in 1995, had used the term at issue in a speech before the Parliament in plenary session and subsequently in an interview with the magazine Profil, he had done so, on both occasions, when also speaking about the near extinction of an ethnic minority in these camps. Therefore the reproach against Mr Haider was not justified.", "12. The applicant company appealed, arguing that the term “belittlement” was a value judgment based on sufficient facts. Mr Haider had used the word “punishment camp” in his speech in Parliament. It was not excessive either, since the term at issue implied that persons detained in such camps had committed a crime, for which they were punished. As a politician, Mr Haider exposed himself to close scrutiny by journalists and the public and, thus, had to display a higher degree of tolerance against criticism for his choice of words.", "13. On 15 December 1999 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the appeal, confirming the Regional Court's judgment. It ordered the applicant to reimburse Mr Haider's procedural costs, including those of the appeal proceedings.\nThe court noted that the article had grossly disregarded the context in which the impugned term had been used by Haider. In particular, he had added that an ethnic minority had almost been made extinct in these camps. The readers, four years after Haider's speech in Parliament and his interview with Profil in 1995, would not remember its contents, and, if at all, would remember only such abbreviated information as was indicated in the article. Correct reporting would have been even more necessary in order to enable readers to form their own opinion.", "14. On 20 December 1999 the applicant published the operative part of the Regional Court's judgment of 28 July 1999 together with its essential reasoning in an issue of Profil." ]	[ 6 ]
[ "8. The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Kurgan.", "9. In 1986 the applicant was called up by the authorities to take part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result, the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.", "10. In 1997 following an expert opinion of 14 April 1997, which established the link between the applicant’s poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events, the applicant was granted monthly health damage compensation.", "11. On 18 February 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Kurgan Social Security Service (МУ «Центр социальной защиты населения г. Кургана») to challenge the amount of compensation which he considered to be erroneous.", "12. On 12 May 1999 the Kurgan Town Court found for the applicant and ordered the Social Security Service to make monthly compensation payments of 1,350.58 Russian roubles (RUR) and pay outstanding amount due from 14 April 1997. The parties did not appeal, and the judgment entered into force on 25 May 1999.", "13. Following the applicant’s request, the Town Court clarified, by its decision of 7 September 1999 which became final on 18 September 1999, that the amount of the outstanding compensation totalled RUR 24,495.94.", "14. The judgment of 12 May 1999 was executed on 6 October 2000.", "15. On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Social Security Service for damages caused by the delay in execution of the judgment of 12 May 1999.", "16. On 21 July 1999 the Town Court found that the Social Security Service had failed to comply timely with the judgment of 12 May 1999 and awarded the applicant RUR 1,000 as a penalty for the delay.", "17. On 5 October 1999 the Kurgan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "18. On 18 October 1999 the Kurgan Bailiff’s Service instituted enforcement proceedings.", "19. The judgment of 21 July 1999 was executed on 26 August 2002.", "20. On 10 May 2000 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s claim against the Kurgan Town Council for provision of State housing, for which he was eligible as a participant of the liquidation of the Chernobyl disaster. The court ordered the Town Council to provide the applicant and his wife with separate well-equipped residential premises located in the town of Kurgan, complying with sanitary and technical standards, having total surface of no less than 52 sq. m., taking into account the applicant’s entitlement to one additional room.", "21. On 22 June 2000 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "22. On 10 July 2000 the Kurgan Bailiff’s Service instituted enforcement proceedings.", "23. The Town Council requested for deferment in execution of the judgment until 1 July 2001 for the reasons of the lack of relevant provisions in the town budget for the year 2000 and big expenses incurred by the Town Council in connection with the repair of damage caused by flood. By its decision of 17 July 2000 the Town Court granted the deferment until 31 December 2000.", "24. At the beginning of 2001 the Town Council asked for another deferment explaining that the town had to finance preventive measures in connection with the new threat of flood in spring 2001. As the local authority did not carry out any housing construction, the execution of the applicant’s judgment was only possible by acquiring a flat on the market. On 20 February 2001 the court granted the deferment until 1 October 2001. On 29 March 2001 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Kurgan Regional Court.", "25. On 20 November 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Town Council asking it to acquire for him a flat located at 26 Blyukher street no. 27 with a total surface of 56.2 sq. m. The applicant stated that he undertook to make a partial contribution in the amount of RUR 65,000 towards the cost of the flat. The applicant also stated in the application that he would not have any further claims to the Town Council if his request was granted.", "26. By Resolution of 21 December 2001 the Mayor of Kurgan ordered to grant the applicant a flat at 26 Blyukher street no. 27 of 56.2 sq. m. total surface in execution of the judgment of 10 May 2000.", "27. In February 2000 the applicant brought another action against the Social Security Service to challenge the amount of the compensation.", "28. On 16 May 2000 the Town Court fixed the monthly compensation at RUR 1,814.13 starting from 8 February 2000. The parties did not appeal, and the judgment came into force on 27 May 2000.", "29. On 5 June 2000 the Kurgan Bailiff’s Service instituted enforcement proceedings.", "30. The judgment of 16 May 2000 was enforced on 26 August 2002." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "7. The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Gozo (Malta).", "8. In 1983 and 1985 the applicant acquired ownership of a plot of land in Gozo, on which a storage facility had been built, and the utile dominium of another plot of land. The applicant alleged that his lands are located far from inhabited areas and that it would have been impossible to cultivate them without having a storage facility for the necessary agricultural equipment and machinery.", "9. In a summons of 7 January 1985, the police charged the applicant with having carried out construction works on his land without having obtained the necessary permits. He was therefore arraigned before the Criminal Court of Judicial Police. The prosecution requested that the punishment established by law be applied and the applicant ordered to demolish the storage facility.", "10. In a judgment of 18 July 1988, the Criminal Court of Judicial Police acquitted the applicant. No penalty was imposed on him, nor was he ordered to demolish the storage facility in question.", "11. On 26 August 1988 the police issued another summons against the applicant for having carried out unauthorised building works.", "12. In a judgment of 21 June 1989, the Criminal Court of Judicial Police found the applicant guilty of the charge brought against him and ordered him to pay a fine of 50 Maltese Liri (Lm). It also gave the applicant a month within which to comply with the law, a penalty of Lm 25 being imposed for each day of default. Under this judgment, the applicant was obliged to demolish the storage facility.", "13. The applicant appealed against this decision, pleading that he had been judged twice for the same facts and proclaiming his innocence.", "14. In a judgment of 15 October 1992, the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the applicant’s plea of ne bis in idem and revoked the judgment of 21 June 1989. However, the court observed that the evidence before it demonstrated that the applicant’s building had been constructed without the required permit. Therefore, it ordered that the building be demolished by the police at its expense. This decision was adopted on the basis of Article 17(9) of Chapter 10 of the Laws of Malta (Code of Police Laws), a provision according to which an order to demolish may be imposed “even where the person charged is acquitted of the charge and the court is satisfied that the building to which the charge refers has been erected in contravention of this section”. The Court of Criminal Appeal observed that the aim of the said article was “to do away with the existing state of illegality even if the accused [was] acquitted”.", "15. Invoking Article 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant introduced a constitutional application before the Civil Court (First Hall). He observed that his property had to be demolished even though he had been found not guilty of the accusations brought against him, and underlined that this became possible only after 6 June 1988, when Article 17(9) of Chapter 10 of the Laws of Malta had been amended. Before that date, no order for demolition could have been imposed on an acquitted person. As the criminal offence had allegedly been committed before that date, the punishment imposed could not be considered foreseeable.", "16. In a judgment of 9 October 1998, the Civil Court rejected the applicant’s claim.", "17. It observed that the applicant had not been deprived of his property, the measure complained of being aimed rather at regulating and controlling the use of property. The applicant had not contested the right of the State to control the building development of the country and to submit building works to a system of permits and authorisations. His allegations were confined to arguing that imposing a demolition order on an owner who had been found not guilty had breached the fair balance which should exist between the general interest of the community and the protection of the rights of the individual. However, the Civil Court could not subscribe to this argument. It noted that if the State had a legitimate interest in not having any constructions on a plot of land, the demolition of an unlawful structure only restored the status quo ante and was therefore a measure proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved. The criminal liability of the owner of the land could not be considered a pre-requisite for adopting such measure.", "18. As far as Article 7 of the Convention was concerned, the Civil Court observed that in a judgment of 6 December 1994, given in the case of the Police v. Mario Bezzina, the Criminal Court had examined the nature of a demolition order and concluded that it constituted a punishment. However, the Civil Court could not share this opinion. In fact, a “punishment” was not intended, as a civil remedy, to restore the status quo ante, but to place the author of the offence, by means of a fine or a term of imprisonment, in a worse position than the one he was in when he committed the criminal act. As the demolition order was intended only to prevent the author of the offence from gaining an unlawful advantage, it was not dependent on a finding of guilt and could not be considered a penalty within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention.", "19. The applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court.", "20. In a judgment of 20 December 2000, the Constitutional Court, considering that the Civil Court had correctly enunciated the principles applicable in the case at issue, rejected the applicant’s appeal. It recalled that it was not contested that the building in question had been constructed without a permit and that it was still not covered by the required permit. It was therefore abusive and illegal and the State had clearly a right to remove it. The Constitutional Court also noted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had found that a criminal act had been committed, even if it could not attribute that act to the applicant. Independently of who was guilty and who had breached the law, the judicial organs should have intervened in order to re-establish the rule of law. The only way to do this was to order the demolition of the unlawfully constructed building." ]	[]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, the Donetsk Region.", "5. On 15 March 2001 the Novogrodovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant UAH 4,791.40[1] against the “Novogrodovskaya” coal mine (a State-owned enterprise, hereafter “the Coal Mine”) in salary arrears. The judgment became final and was sent to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) for compulsory enforcement.", "6. In June 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the City Court against the Bailiffs’ Service in respect of its alleged inactivity. On 23 August 2001 the City Court rejected this complaint, stating, inter alia, that no fault was attributable to the bailiffs, who had undertaken all necessary measures to secure the execution of the judgment of 15 March 2001 and that the non-enforcement of this judgment was caused by the Coal Mine’s lack of funds. The City Court also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were further impeded by a bankruptcy case pending against the Coal Mine before the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration, which on 14 May 2001 prohibited the Bailiffs’ Service from performing any activity that involved the forced sale of the Coal Mine’s assets. On 5 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the City Court. On 18 February 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal.", "7. On 25 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered the merger of the Coal Mine with several others into the Selydivvugilia State Company.", "8. In a letter of 21 July 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant about the following impediments to the execution of the judgment given in his favour:\n- the ruling of the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration of 14 May 2001, prohibiting the Bailiffs’ Service from performing any activity that involved the forced sale of the Coal Mine’s assets;\n- the ruling of the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court of 23 February 2002, barring any attachment or sale of the Coal Mine’s property (both bans above were lifted on 2 April 2003, when the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court terminated the bankruptcy proceedings against the Coal Mine);\n- the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises introduced by the 2001 Law.", "9. On 1 September 2003, following the transfer of the Coal Mine’s funds to the Selydivvugilia State Company, the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings pending the replacement of the debtor in the applicant’s case. On 24 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the City Court for a direction to that effect. On 31 October 2003 the City Court ordered that the debtor in the case be replaced by the Selydivvugilia State Company. On 19 November 2003 the enforcement case was transmitted to the Selidvivske City Bailiffs’ Service.", "10. The sum awarded to the applicant by the judgment of 15 March 2001 was paid to him in two instalments in February and May 2004." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Kyiv.", "5. In May 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bagaleysky District Court of Dneprodzerzhynsk (hereafter “the District Court”) against Mr M. (her brother) for the division of their late parents’ estate.", "6. The first court hearing was held on 11 June 1997, when the defendant filed a counterclaim. The next sitting before the District Court was scheduled for 25 June 1997 but was adjourned at the defendant’s request.", "7. According to the Government, the hearing fixed for 22 July 1997 was cancelled on account of the applicant’s failure to appear. The applicant contested this submission, stating that she was present in court and that the hearing took place as scheduled.", "8. On 9 September 1997 the applicant lodged a successful request for the removal of the judge.", "9. At a hearing on 27 November 1997, the applicant obtained an adjournment.", "10. On 18 December 1997 the defendant unsuccessfully challenged the participation of the trial judge and obtained an adjournment to summon witnesses. The adjournment was extended until 19 February 1998 at the applicant’s request.", "11. During February 1998 the court held three hearings and questioned a number of witnesses.", "12. The Government stated that on 19 March 1998 the applicant sought, and was granted, a two-month adjournment. The applicant did not deny this but, in her observations, she mentioned two hearings that were held during this period.", "13. According to the Government, on 20 May 1998 the court, at the defendant’s request, ordered an assessment of the estate by a building expert and adjourned the hearing until 21 July 1998. The applicant enumerated, however, six hearings, allegedly fixed for this period, four of which were cancelled due to the defendant’s failure to appear.", "14. On 21 July 1998 the defendant unsuccessfully challenged the trial judge and the expert.", "15. On 21 August 1998 the hearing was adjourned until October 1998 due to the defendant’s failure to appear.", "16. On 26 October 1998 the hearing was cancelled, according to the Government, due to the failure of the applicant’s lawyer to appear; according to the applicant, it was because the defendant did not show up.", "17. On 4 November 1998, the court, following the defendant’s application, ordered an additional expert examination of the disputed property.", "18. The applicant stated that on 21 December 1998 and 27 January 1999 the hearings were adjourned due to the defendant’s absence in court. The Government did not mention any hearings having been fixed during this period.", "19. On 15 January 1999 the expert institution informed the court that the requested examination was impossible due to a lack of relevant documentation and the deficiency of the questions posed to them. The institution requested that further documents be provided and the questions reformulated.", "20. On 3 February 1999 the court reformulated its questions to the experts, ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the expert opinion and made an interim injunction to preserve the status quo.", "21. On 20 August 1999 the expert opinion was delivered.", "22. On 1 September 1999 the hearing was cancelled due to the applicant’s failure to appear.", "23. On 9 November 1999 the court adjourned the hearing on its own motion.", "24. Between 11 November 1999 and 5 January 2000, the hearings were adjourned on four occasions due to the defendant’s failure to appear. On 16 November 1999 the court issued a warrant to compel the defendant’s presence. On 26 November 1999 a local constable informed the court that the warrant could not be executed as Mr M. was absent from his place of residence.", "25. From 5 January to 5 June 2000 the court adjourned hearings on five occasions due to the applicant’s absence in court.", "26. On 5 June 2000 the defendant unsuccessfully challenged the judge.", "27. Between 13 June and 18 October 2000 six hearings were cancelled due to the failure of the applicant (on one occasion), the defendant (on two occasion) and both parties (on three occasions) to appear in court.", "28. From 18 October to 1 December 2000 the court held five hearings.", "29. On 1 December 2000 the court allowed the applicant’s claim, awarding her 77/100 of the disputed estate. In its judgment the court referred to the testimonies of eighteen witnesses and a wide range of documentary and expert evidence.", "30. The defendant appealed. On 12 February 2001 the Dnipropetrovsky Regional Court quashed the judgment of 1 December 2000 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.", "31. On 10 April 2001 the District Court remitted the case for trial.", "32. On 26 April and 28 May 2001 the hearings were adjourned on account of the applicant’s failure to appear.", "33. At hearings on 15 August 2001 and 11 September 2001, the applicant sought and obtained adjournments to amend her claims.", "34. On 18 September 2001 the applicant filed an appeal under the new cassation procedure against the decision of 12 February 2001. The applicant was refused leave to appeal and was given time to rectify the procedural defects of that cassation appeal.", "35. On 17 October 2001 the applicant lodged an amended claim and the defendant applied for an adjournment to familiarise himself with it.", "36. On 18 October 2001 the hearing was adjourned at the applicant’s request.", "37. Between 8 November 2001 and 4 February 2002, the hearings were cancelled on four occasions due to the applicant’s failure to appear.", "38. On 4 February 2002 the judge granted an adjournment at the applicant’s request pending the examination of her cassation appeal.", "39. On 15 March 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.", "40. On 10 May 2002 the District Court resumed the consideration of the case; however it had to adjourn the hearing due to the applicant’s absence. From then onwards until 25 December 2002 the applicant failed to appear for eight sittings.", "41. From 31 January to 1 December 2003 the court held five and cancelled three hearings (one hearing was cancelled due to the applicant’s failure to appear, one because the judge was occupied with another case and the last one due to a third person’s illness).", "42. Between 1 December 2003 and 2 February 2004 three sittings were adjourned because of the applicant’s failure to appear and her illness.", "43. On 3 February 2004 the applicant asked the court to hear the case in her absence.", "44. On 10 February 2004 the court heard witnesses.", "45. The hearings fixed for 26 February and 9 March 2004 were cancelled due to a third person’s failure to appear. On 25 March 2004 the court decided to hear the case in that person’s absence. The court, at the defendant’s request, ordered a further expert opinion on the disputed property.", "46. On 29 April 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment, partly granting the applicant’s claim. However, Mr M.’s share in the estate was increased to 28 %.", "47. The defendant appealed against this judgment. The District Court invited the applicant to comment on the appeal. Having received the applicant’s comments, on 16 June 2004 the court referred the case to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk Region.", "48. On 7 September 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 29 April 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.", "49. The case resumed on 23 October 2004, however the court had to adjourn this hearing as well as the next one due to the applicant’s failure to appear. On 7 December 2004 the applicant asked the court to proceed with the case in her absence.", "50. On 10 December 2004 the defendant (apparently unsuccessfully) challenged the participation of all judges of the District Court and requested that the case be remitted to another court.", "51. The case is still pending before the District Court." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "7. The applicant was born in 1953 and was serving a sentence in Nazilli prison at the time of lodging his application.", "8. On 5 January and 30 June 1994, and on 11 July 1995, the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court issued arrest warrants in respect of the applicant on suspicion of his involvement with the PKK[1].", "9. On 23 May 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers at the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. According to the arrest protocol, signed by a police officer and the applicant, the latter was arrested at 18.00 p.m. and was told of his rights, in particular, the right to object to the prolongation of his arrest and detention to a judge.", "10. On an unspecified date[2], the applicant’s wife filed a petition with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office and requested information as to where her husband was being held and when he would be brought before the public prosecutor. She submitted that her husband was arrested on 23 May 2001 at around 15.00 p.m. On 24 May 2001 the public prosecutor informed the applicant’s wife that her husband was held in custody on account of his involvement with the PKK.", "11. The Government submitted that the applicant was taken for a medical examination at Diyarbakır State Hospital on the day of his arrest and on 24 and 25 May 2001. They maintained that on 24 May 2001 the İzmir Security Directorate requested the transfer of the applicant from Diyarbakır to İzmir and that the applicant arrived, accompanied by a police officer from the Diyarbakır State Security Directorate, by plane, in İzmir on 25 May 2001 at 14.30 p.m.", "12. On 25 May 2001 the applicant was handed over to the police officers at the İzmir Security Directorate. On the same day, the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court authorised the extension of the applicant’s detention until 28 May 2001.", "13. On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Atatürk Hospital at 14.50 p.m.", "14. On 26 May 2001 the applicant was requested to identify other suspects that he had mentioned in his statements, by looking at photographs in the archives. The identification report signed by the applicant and four police officers indicated that the applicant had previously been interrogated and that he was illiterate. On 27 May 2001 the applicant’s statement was taken by two police officers at the Anti-Terror Branch of the İzmir Security Directorate.", "15. On 28 May 2001 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Atatürk Hospital at 13.05 p.m.", "16. On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court and before the İzmir State Security Court. The latter remanded him in custody since it considered that there was a risk of him escaping.", "17. On 9 May 2002 the applicant was convicted of being a member of a terrorist organisation (Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment." ]	[ 2 ]
[ "6. Messrs Vasyl Vasylyovych Ishchenko and Viktor Ivanovich Khomenko were born in 1954. Mr Valeriy Volodymyrovych Rasyuk was born in 1952. Mrs Nadiya Ivanivna Yeremenko was born in 1950. Mr Anatoliy Mykolayovych Yeremenko was born in 1976. Mr Oleksandr Mykolayovych Yeremenko was born in 1974. All of the applicants reside in the city of Chernigiv, Ukraine.", "7. Mrs Nadiya Ivanivna Yeremenko, Mr Anatoliy Mykolayovych Yeremenko and Mr Oleksandr Mykolayovych Yeremenko are the heirs of Mr Mykola Petrovych Yeremenko.", "8. In 1998-2001 Messrs Vasyl Vasylyovych Ishchenko, Viktor Ivanovich Khomenko, Valeriy Volodymyrovych Rasyuk and Mykola Petrovych Yeremenko instituted separate sets of proceedings in the Desnyanskiy District Court of Chernigiv, seeking the recovery of salary arrears and other payments from their former employer, the State-owned “Atomspetsbud” company which performed construction work at Chernobyl in the zone which had been compulsory evacuated.", "9. By judgments of 20 February and 26 July 2001, Mr Vasyl Vasylyovych Ishchenko was awarded a total of 12,379.10 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears and other payments. In March 2001 the Slavutytskyi Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 20 February 2001. In his complaints of 19 October and 12 December 2001 to the Bailiffs’ Service and to the Ministry of Justice, Mr Ishchenko requested information about the enforcement proceedings in respect of the second judgment in his favour. No answer was received. By letter of 24 January 2002, the Kyiv Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice informed Mr Ishchenko that the judgment of 20 February 2001 would be enforced gradually in accordance with the applicant’s place in the list of creditors. Both judgments in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced. The total debt is equivalent to 2,034.72 euros (“EUR”).", "10. By judgment of 17 September 1998, Messrs Viktor Ivanovich Khomenko and Valeriy Volodymyrovych Rasyuk were awarded 7,692.57 and UAH 7,357.57, respectively, in salary arrears. In November 1998 the Slavutytskyi Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings. In 1999-2000 the applicants received UAH 396.10 and 378.74, respectively. However, the judgment remains to a large extent unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 7,296.47 and 6,978.83, respectively (the equivalent of EUR 1,199.3 and 1,147.09).", "11. By judgment of 27 August 1999, Mr Mykola Petrovych Yeremenko was awarded UAH 7,243 in salary arrears. In October 1999 the Slavutytskyi Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings. On 2 April 2003 Mr Yeremenko died. The judgment in his favour remains unenforced. The debt is equivalent to EUR 1,190.51.", "12. By letter of 4 January 2003, the Ukrainian Government Agent informed the applicants’ lawyer about the large number of execution writs pending against the debtor company, in the total amount of UAH 3,849,312[1]. Enforcement of the judgments by the attachment of property, however, required a special authorisation from the Ministry for Emergencies due to the location of the debtor’s property in the Chernobyl area, contaminated by radiation. Such authorisation was not granted.", "13. By the order of 27 June 2002 of the Ministry of Energy, the debtor company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established.", "14. Accordingly, between 26 December 2002 and 17 March 2003, the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicants’ cases and forwarded all the execution writs to the liquidation commission as creditors’ claims. The liquidation proceedings are still pending." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The first and the third applicants were born in 1946 and 1959 respectively, they both live in Bełchatów. The second applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Szczerców.", "5. On 17 March 1989 the applicants filed with the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action for payment against the Bełchatow Coal Mine in Rogowiec. On 17 November 1989 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. Both parties to the proceedings appealed.", "6. On 7 March 1991 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case.", "7. On 7 June 1993 an expert submitted his opinion to the court. The court held hearings on the following dates: 16 September 1993, 28 June 1994 and 28 July 1994.", "8. On 11 August 1994 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. Both parties to the proceedings appealed.", "9. On 24 March 1995 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the contested judgment and referred the case to the lower instance for reconsideration.", "10. On 22 February, 26 September, 5 November, 10 December 1996 and 3 June 1997 the Regional Court held hearings.", "11. On 11 June 1997 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. The applicants appealed.", "12. On 17 December 1997 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) amended the contested judgment and ordered the company B to pay a higher amount of compensation to the applicants. On 11 February 1999 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court.", "13. On 2 September 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeal as unsubstantiated. On 16 March 2000 the Supreme Court, at the defendant’s lawyer’s request, amended the judgment of 2 September 1999 and ordered the applicants to pay the cassation fees. The decision was served on the applicants on 20 March 2000." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, the Donetsk Region.", "5. On 8 July 1997 and 22 February 2000 the Novogrodovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 33,277[1] against the Novogrodovskaya State-owned Coal Mine No. 2 (hereafter “the NCM”) for arrears of salary, redundancy pay and industrial disability benefits. The judgments became final and were remitted to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service for compulsory enforcement.", "6. In 1998 and 1999 the Novgorodsky City Court and the Donetsk Regional Court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaints against the Rossiya Association (the NCM’s managing company between August 1997 and March 1998) and the NCM for their failure to pay in due time and in full the sum awarded to him by the judgment of 8 July 1997.", "7. In 1999 and 2000 the Prosecutor’s Office rejected on several occasions the applicant’s criminal complaints against officials of the Bailiffs’ Service.", "8. On 24 May 2001 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy decided to wind up the NCM, designating the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company as its successor.", "9. The applicant instituted proceedings in the City Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the decisions in his favour. On 14 August 2001, the court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs, who had demonstrated due diligence in enforcing the judgments in the applicant’s favour, but the NCM’s lack of funds had prevented them from securing the immediate payment of the awards.", "10. In 2002 and 2003, due to the on-going bankruptcy proceedings against the NCM, the Bailiffs’ Service forwarded on several occasions the applicant’s writs of execution to the NCM’s liquidation commission, which refused to accept them, referring to the company’s lack of funds.", "11. The judgments of 8 July 1997 and 22 February 2000 remain partially unenforced, the outstanding debts being UAH 3,736[2] and 2,857[3] respectively." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest.", "5. In September 1997 a building permit was issued to the applicant’s neighbour, which was amended on 6 October 1997. On 26 January 1998 the Budapest Administrative Office dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal against these decisions.", "6. On 19 March 1998 the applicant filed an action with the Pest Central District Court challenging the administrative decisions. The administrative case-file was transferred to the District Court on 6 April 1998, which held a hearing on 16 October 1998.", "7. Meanwhile, an additional permit was issued to the neighbour on 23 June 1998 which was upheld by the Administrative Office on 16 November 1998. On 24 November 1998 the applicant filed an action against this decision and requested that the two cases be joined.", "8. On 10 December 1998 the District Court held a hearing and joined the two actions.", "9. On 26 January 1999 the case was transferred to the competent Budapest Regional Court. The latter held hearings on 12 May and 1 December 1999. On 28 February 2000 it appointed an expert architect. The expert submitted his opinion on 14 April 2000.", "10. On 11 May and 5 November 2001 hearings were held. On 16 May, 10 September, 6 and 19 December 2001 the applicant submitted further particulars of her claims; she also requested that a hearing scheduled for 3 September 2001 be postponed.", "11. On 14 January 2002 the Regional Court quashed the administrative decisions and ordered the authorities to re-examine the case.", "12. On 11 February 2002 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. After having been instructed to do so, the applicant re-introduced her appeal, this time countersigned by a lawyer, on 6 November 2002.", "13. On 31 March 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance decision.", "14. In 2002 the applicant brought an action in damages against the neighbour in question. On 27 August and 12 December 2002 the Budapest II/III District Court held hearings.", "15. The expert architect appointed in the case submitted her opinion in February 2003. Further hearings took place on 13 February, 17 April and 7 October 2003. After the applicant’s request to have it suspended pending the outcome of the above administrative litigation, the case appears to be still pending." ]	[ 3 ]
[ "8. The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Diyarbakır.", "9. On 28 October 2001 he was arrested by gendarmes and taken into custody at the Diyarbakır gendarmerie command.", "10. On 30 October 2001 the gendarmes took a statement from him. He was suspected of having assisted and supported the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation under Turkish law. He allegedly signed his statement while blindfolded. At the end of his detention in the gendarmes' custody, he was examined by a forensic medical expert. No signs of ill-treatment were observed on his body.", "11. On 1 November 2001, after being interviewed by the public prosecutor, the applicant was brought before a judge of the Diyarbakır National Security Court, who ordered his detention pending trial. Before both the prosecutor and the judge the applicant denied the accusations against him. He was subsequently taken to Diyarbakır Prison.", "12. On 1 November 2001, ruling on applications by the governor of the state of emergency region and the public prosecutor, and on the basis of Article 3 (c) of Legislative Decree no. 430 on additional measures to be taken in connection with the state of emergency, the judge granted leave for the applicant to be sent back to the gendarmerie command for questioning for a period not exceeding ten days. The applicant was returned to the gendarmes' custody at 10.45 p.m. that day.", "13. On 6 November 2001 the National Security Court dismissed an objection by the applicant's family, on the ground that the length of his detention was consistent with the limits laid down in domestic law.", "14. On 10 November 2001 the judge extended the applicant's detention at the gendarmerie command by ten days, again on the basis of Legislative Decree no. 430.", "15. On 15 November 2001 an objection by the applicant's representative was dismissed by the National Security Court.", "16. On 20 November 2001 the applicant was taken back to prison.", "17. On 20 and 21 November 2001 the governor of the state of emergency region and the public prosecutor, again on the basis of Legislative Decree no. 430, asked the judge to extend the applicant's detention at the gendarmerie command by a further ten days.", "18. On 21 November 2001 the judge refused that request on the ground that the case file did not contain any evidence to substantiate it and that such an omission was attributable to the authorities.", "19. The public prosecutor lodged an objection against that decision.", "20. On 22 November 2001 the National Security Court allowed the objection and observed that the applicant was the subject of three other investigations. It granted a further ten-day extension and leave for the applicant to be taken from prison for questioning.", "21. On the same day the applicant was handed over to the gendarmes.", "22. On 1 December 2001 the judge extended the applicant's detention at the gendarmerie command by a further ten days.", "23. On 12 December 2001 the applicant was taken back to Diyarbakır Prison.", "24. Each time the applicant left and returned to the prison, he was examined by a doctor. The reports subsequently drawn up did not mention any signs of blows to the applicant's body.", "25. In an indictment of 6 April 2001, the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 168 of the Criminal Code, by which it is an offence to be a member of an armed gang.", "26. At a hearing on 26 June 2001, the National Security Court ordered the applicant's provisional release.", "27. On 27 August 2001 he was acquitted in the absence of any evidence other than his initial statement to the gendarmes.", "28. On 20 September 2001 the judgment became final.", "29. On 9 November 2001 the applicant's representative lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor at the National Security Court against the gendarmes, alleging that they had ill-treated the applicant in order to obtain a confession from him. He asked for the applicant to be given a thorough medical examination. He further submitted that the applicant's recurring periods of detention at the gendarmerie command had breached both the provision of the Constitution governing the maximum length of detention in police custody and Article 5 of the Convention.", "30. On 13 November 2001 the public prosecutor at the National Security Court ruled that he did not have jurisdiction and forwarded the file to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office.", "31. On 13 December 2001 the applicant was interviewed by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor. He asserted that he had been sprayed with cold water, had been insulted, threatened and beaten, had had his testicles squeezed and had been placed naked in front of a fan blowing cold air. He lodged a criminal complaint against the gendarmes involved in questioning him. He also requested a medical examination and treatment.", "32. In a letter of 21 December 2001 to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, the applicant's representative reiterated his allegations of torture and asked for his client to be examined at a specialist medical department.", "33. On 14 February 2002 the public prosecutor ordered thorough medical examinations to be carried out at the urology department and a testicular scintigram and pelvic ultrasound scan to be carried out at the nuclear medicine department of Dicle University in order to detect any signs of ill-treatment.", "34. In a document of 27 March 2002, addressed to the Diyarbakır provincial governor, the public prosecutor sought leave to bring proceedings against the gendarmes in whose custody the applicant had been held.", "35. A urological ultrasound scan of 18 April 2002 and a testicular scintigram of 13 May 2002 did not reveal any abnormalities.", "36. A preliminary investigation was opened by the Diyarbakır Provincial Administrative Council in respect of the gendarmerie commander.", "37. On 1 May 2002 the Administrative Council decided, in the absence of sufficient evidence, not to open an investigation with a view to prosecuting the official in question.", "38. On 22 May 2002 the applicant lodged an objection against that decision with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court.", "39. On 31 December 2002 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court upheld the decision. The Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office subsequently discontinued the proceedings.", "40. On 7 February 2003 the applicant appealed to the Siverek Assize Court against the decision to discontinue the proceedings.", "41. On 26 March 2003 the appeal was dismissed in view of the decision by the Diyarbakır provincial governor's office." ]	[ 2 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the city of Bryanka-1, Ukraine.", "5. On 27 May 2002 the Bryanka City Court ordered the State Company “Shakhtoupravlinnya No. 17” to pay the applicant UAH 9,970.16[1] in salary arrears and other payments.", "6. On 8 July 2002 the Shakhtarsk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.", "7. On 25 October 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment of 18 June 2002 could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.", "8. On 25 December 2003, 7 September and 29 December 2004, respectively, the full amount of the judgment debt was paid to the applicant in three instalments of UAH 1,195.74[2], 1,727.84[3] and 7,053.58[4].", "9. In November 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bryanka City Court against the same company seeking the amendment of his retirement date and compensation for the failure to pay him the judgment debt of 27 May 2002.", "10. On 4 November 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 12 January 2005 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 4 November 2004. The applicant’s appeal in cassation is still pending before the Supreme Court of Ukraine." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "4. The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, the Donetsk region.", "5. On 16 June 1999 and 11 April 2001 the Novogrodovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 4,078[1] against the Novogrodovskaya Coal Mine (a State-owned entity, hereafter “the Coal Mine”) in salary arrears. Both judgments became final and were sent to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) for compulsory enforcement.", "6. In 2001 the applicant complained to the City Court about the Bailiffs’ alleged inactivity. On 11 September 2001 the court rejected this complaint, stating, inter alia, that no fault was attributable to the Bailiffs, who had undertaken all necessary measures to secure the execution of the judgments, and that their non-enforcement was due to the Coal Mine’s lack of funds. The City Court also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were further impeded by the bankruptcy case pending against the Coal Mine before the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration, which on 30 August 2000 and 14 May 2001 prohibited the Bailiffs’ Service from attaching and selling the Coal Mine’s assets. On 19 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the City Court. On 7 March 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal.", "7. On 25 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered a merger of the Coal Mine with several others to form the Selydivvugilia State Company.", "8. On 3 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the City Court for directions regarding the replacement of the debtor in the applicant’s case. On 18 December 2003 the City Court ordered that the debtor be replaced by the Selydivvugilia State Company.", "9. On 21 September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the judgments in the applicant’s favour had been enforced in full." ]	[ 3, 9 ]
[ "9. The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Krasnoyarskoye, the Donetsk region, Ukraine. He temporarily resides in the village of Kalinovka, the Vinnytsia region, Ukraine.", "10. The circumstances of the case, as relevant to the complaints declared admissible, may be summarised as follows.", "11. On 2 September 1988 the applicant lodged complaints with the Dobropolye City Court (the “DCC”) against the Belitskaya Mining Company (“Imeni XXI syezda KPSS”) in Dobropolye (the “Belitskaya Mine”), and the Dobropolskiy communal farm (“Sovkhoz Dobropolskiy”), seeking compensation for the damage caused to his house by the work of underground mining machines.", "12. Between September 1988 and May 1998, the case was examined on a number of occasions by the DCC and the Donetsk Regional Court (the “DRC”).", "13. By a judgment of 30 May 1994, the DCC declared the defendants liable for the damage caused to the applicant’s house. It ordered them to build a new house for the applicant, equivalent to that which had been damaged, by 1 July 1995, and to pay him compensation. The DCC held that the new house had to measure 76,64 square meters and had to include three rooms for habitation, utility rooms (підсобні приміщення) and outdoor premises (надвірні приміщення) on the plot of 0,25 hectare, surrounded by a fence. It also ordered the payment to the applicant and his wife of 2,627,925 karbovantsi, each, in compensation for the damage to certain property which had been in the original house, as well as costs for expert examinations and State taxes. In particular, the DCC ruled that:\n“ The Belitskaya mine and Dobropolskiy communal farm, in respective shares, [are] to ensure the restitution for pecuniary damage in kind by building him a house measuring 76,64 square meters on the plot of 0,25 hectares, to be composed of two bedrooms, a living room and auxiliary rooms – a kitchen, hall, bathroom and toilet; outdoor premises: a lobby/porch, basement and garage; support premises: a summer kitchen, premises for domestic animals, birds, storage space for food, coal and wood; a fence surrounding the plot with an additional asphalt cover for the yard and green plantations around the house; to be completed before 1 July 1995.\n[Orders] the Belitskaya Mine and the Dobropolskiy communal farm to pay the applicant and his wife, each, 2,627,925 karbovantsi in compensation for the damage caused to their property...”", "14. On 11 July 1994, the DRC upheld the judgment of 30 May 1994, which, that same day, became final.", "15. Contested enforcement proceedings ensued after the defendants failed to comply with the judgment of 30 May 1994. Two key decisions were as follows:\n- first, that of the DCC on 14 November 1996, upholding the judgment in the applicant’s favour and ordering the defendants to reimburse the applicant, before 14 February 1997, UAH 70,054.70 for his expenses relating to the construction of a new house;\n- secondly, that of the DRC on 13 January 1997, upholding the preceding decision, which thereby became final and enforceable.", "16. On 10 September 1997 the Presidium of the DRC allowed the protest of the Acting Prosecutor of the Donetsk Region, quashed the decisions of 14 November 1996 and 13 January 1997, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the DCC.", "17. On 15 May 1998 the Prosecutor General lodged a new protest with the Supreme Court, seeking the initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the applicant’s case. By a Resolution of 10 June 1998, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 30 May 1994 given in the applicant’s favour. It remitted the case to the DCC for fresh consideration. In particular, it stated that, in finding that the defendants had to build the applicant a new house, the courts had not specified in what way the original building had been defective. It also held that the award of compensation did not correspond to the actual level of inflation or the current price of construction and construction expenditures.", "18. On 7 June 1999 the DCC decided not to consider the applicant’s claims as he failed to appear in court on 16 November and 7 December 1998, 9 February, 16 March, 19 April, and 4 and 17 May 1999.", "19. On 1 September 1999 the Presidium of the DRC allowed the protest of its President and quashed the ruling of 7 June 1999, remitting the case for a fresh consideration to the same court. The Presidium also gave a separate ruling as to the length of the proceedings in the applicant’s case and noted the fact that the applicant had not been duly informed about the hearings and, therefore, had been unable to attend them.", "20. On 25 February 2000 the parties failed to appear before the DCC. On the same date the DCC decided not to consider the applicant’s claims because of his absence. On 2 August 2000 the President of the DRC allowed the protest of his Deputy and quashed this ruling, the case being again remitted for a fresh consideration.", "21. The case was re-examined on a number of occasions (see Timotiyevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 63158/00, 18 May 2004). By decisions of 13 April and 24 May 2001, the DCC adjourned the proceedings due to the applicant’s failure to appear before it. On 18 June 2001 the applicant again failed to appear before the DCC. As a result, the DCC did not consider the applicant’s substantive claims and the proceedings were finally terminated. The applicant did not appeal.", "22. On 19 June 2001 the applicant requested the DCC to suspend the proceedings in his case due to the consideration of his application by the European Court of Human Rights." ]	[ 3, 9 ]