ITEMID: 001-75284
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: ICLI v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
TEXT: The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. They currently live in Istanbul. They are represented before the Court by Mr M.A. Kırdök, Mr Özcan Kılıç and Mr Hasan Kemal Elban, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property. It is to be noted that another person, Bira İçli, appears to be the owner of the property in question according to the documents submitted to the Court.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 4 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of her house by the security forces on 3 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 § b of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that no investigation into her allegations would be undertaken as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On an unknown date the applicant filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli and with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to her village.
On 31 October 2001 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property. It is to be noted that another person, Ali Murat Akyer, appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 7 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of her house by security forces on 3 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 (b) of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 10 October 2001 the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to her village and to use her property.
The applicant received no response to her petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of Ovacık district in Tunceli, where her husband, Saycan İçyer owned property. Saycan İçyer died in 1999.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
The applicant contends that on 3 March 1999 her husband Saycan İçyer filed a petition with the Prime Minister’s office, the Governor’s office in Tunceli and with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village. However, the application does not contain the petition in question. The Public Relations Unit of the Prime Minister’s Office sent a letter, dated 17 March 1999, stating that the petition Mr Saycan İçyer lodged with the Prime Minister’s office had been transmitted to the Ministry of the Interior for consideration.
On 24 September 2001 the applicant filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli and with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to her village.
The applicant received no response to her petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in Eğrikavak.
On 3 October 1994 the security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 5 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces on 3 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 (b) of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 24 September 2001 the applicant lodged petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli and with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 31 October 2001 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where his father owns property. It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate to the Court attesting his ownership of property in Eğrikavak.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 5 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces on 3 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 (b) of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 24 September 2001 the applicant lodged petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli and with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 31 October 2001 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property. It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate to the Court attesting her ownership of property in Eğrikavak with her application.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 5 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of her house by security forces on 3 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 (b) of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 25 September 2001 the applicant filed petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli and with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to her village.
On 1 October 2001 her petitions were received by these offices.
The applicant received no response to her petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that another person, Aydın İçyer, appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.)
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
In 2000 the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to benefit from the pre-fabricated housing units that would be built.
On 22 November 2000 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent a reply to the applicant stating:
“Your petition requesting permission to benefit from the prefabricated housing units has been received. However, the new houses will be used by those who are already residents in prefabricated buildings.
Your petition will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 25 September 2001 the applicant filed further petitions with the Governor’s office in Tunceli and with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 1 October 2001 his petitions were received by these offices.
The applicant received no response to his petitions within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 4 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of her house by security forces on 3 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 (b) of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 23 August 2001 the applicant filed petitions with the Parliament and with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to her village and to use her property.
On 16 November 2001 the applicant received the following response from the Governor’s office in Tunceli:
“The petition that you lodged with the Commission for Petitions of the Parliament has been transmitted to the Governor’s office in Tunceli and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli. He owns property in Eğrikavak and also in the neighbouring village of Bilgeç.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Ovacık, where they currently live.
On 10 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces on 3 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 (b) of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 24 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village. The applicant also submitted a document to the Court, a petition to the Governor’s office in Tunceli, which does not bear any stamp or sign proving that it was filed with this office.
On 1 October 2001 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 4 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces on 3 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 (b) of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 19 April 2001 the State of Emergency Unit of the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’. Besides, returning to your village is at your discretion.”
The applicant alleges that on 25 June 2001 he went to the District Governor’s office in Ovacık in order to inform the authorities that he would return to Eğrikavak. In the District Governor’s office he was told to inform the District Gendarmes Headquarters instead. The applicant contends that a gendarmes captain from the Headquarters, whose first name is Murat, told him that it was not allowed to return to the village for security reasons. The applicant and two other persons, namely Nari İren and Merali İçli, drafted a note on this refusal. This note is attached to the Mr Kalik’s application to the Court. The applicant did not submit any official document to the Court certifying the refusal of the District Gendarmes Headquarters.
On 17 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
On 21 August 2001 the Governor’s office in Tunceli received his petition.
The applicant received no response to his above petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli. He owns property in Eğrikavak and also in the neighbouring village of Bilgeç.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 4 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces on 3 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 (b) of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village. The applicant also submitted a document to the Court, a petition dated 23 August 2001 and addressed to the Governor’s office in Tunceli, which does not bear any stamp or sign proving that it was filed with this office.
On 31 October 2001 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli. He owns property in Eğrikavak and also in the neighbouring village of Bilgeç.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 27 September 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 31 October 2001 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that Nari İren and Mehmet İren appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 24 December 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 16 January 2002 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that Nari İren and Mehmet İren appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 25 December 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 16 January 2002 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that another person, Mahmut Kalik, appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 25 December 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 16 January 2002 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicants lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where they owns property. It is to be noted that their father Ali Nakış appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 24 December 2001 the applicants filed separate petitions with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to their village.
On 16 January 2002 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following response to the applicants separately:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli. He owns property in Eğrikavak and also in the neighbouring village of Bilgeç.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 19 December 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 27 December 2001 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık received his petition.
The applicant received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property. It is to be noted that Zeynel Kan and Abdullah Kan appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 4 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of her house by security forces on 3 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 (b) of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
In the meantime, in 1995, the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting financial aid. On 27 June 1995 she received a reply from this office stating that, following the examination of the situation of Ovacık inhabitants, the necessary aid would be provided. However, she has not received any aid.
In 2000 the applicant filed another petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting authorisation to return to her village.
On 20 July 2000 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following response to the applicant:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 10 July 2001 the applicant lodged a further petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to Eğrikavak.
On 31 October 2001 she a response similar to that of 20 July 2000 from the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Eğrikavak, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property. It is to be noted that the applicant’s husband Kazım Yay, appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 3 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Eğrikavak on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Adana, where they currently live.
On 4 January 2002 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to her village and financial aid.
On 16 January 2002 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık received her petition.
The applicant received no reply to her petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property. It is to be noted that Bira Bozoğlu appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family moved to Manisa. They then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 23 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to her village and to use her property.
On 27 August 2001 the Governor’s office in Tunceli received her petition.
The applicant received no response to her petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that the applicant’s father Hamo Akgül appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 15 August 2001 the applicant sent a petition to the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting information on possible compensation for their evacuation from their village and permission to return to his village.
The applicant received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property. It is to be noted that the applicant’s father Ahmet Ağgül appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 10 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of her house by security forces on 5 October 1994.
On 25 October 1995 the office of Administrative Council of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
In 2000 the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to her village.
On 11 April 2000 she received the following response from the State of Emergency Unit of the Governor’s office in Tunceli:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 28 September 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to her village.
On 2 October 2001 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık received her petition.
The applicant received no reply to her petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated tKarataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 2 October 2001 the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 8 October 2001 the District Governor’s office in Ovacık received his petition.
The applicant received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that, on the documents submitted to the Court, other persons with the family name “Aktaş” appear to be the owners of the property in question.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 10 October 1994 the applicant’s wife, Suna Aktaş lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of their house by the security forces on 5 October 1994.
On 25 October 1995 the office of Administrative Council of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent a letter to Suna Aktaş stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 14 February 2000 the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor’s office in Istanbul to be sent to the Governor’s office in Tunceli, requesting permission to return to his village and to use his property.
On 11 April 2000 the State of Emergency Unit of the Governor’s office in Tunceli responded the applicant, stating:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 13 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
The applicant received no response to his above petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property. It is to be noted that, on the documents submitted to the Court, other persons with the family name “Aktaş” appear to be the owners of the property in question.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 17 September 1999 the applicant lodged a petition with the Ministry of the Interior requesting permission to return to her village.
On 20 October 1999 she received a response from the District Governor’s office in Ovacık stating:
“... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved.
Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor’s office when it is possible to return to the villages ...”
On the same date the Governor’s office in Tunceli sent a letter to the Ministry of the Interior. It stated that the inhabitants Karataş had left their village in 1994 due to terrorist incidents and that return to these villages would be possible when the security of the region is re-established.
In 2000 the applicant lodged another petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to her village.
On 11 April 2000 she received the following response from this office:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 13 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to her village.
They received no response to her above petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that, on the documents submitted to the Court, other persons with the family name “Aktaş” appear to be the owners of the property in question.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 6 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on 5 October 1994.
On 25 October 1995 the office of Administrative Council of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 13 August 2001 the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
They received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that Bira Bozoğlu appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 23 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village and to use his property.
On 27 August 2001 the Governor’s office in Tunceli received his petition.
The applicant received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that Bira Bozoğlu appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 24 September 2001 the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village and to use his property.
On 25 September 2001 the Governor’s office in Tunceli received his petition.
The applicant received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that Bira Bozoğlu appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 23 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village and to use his property.
On 27 August 2001 the Governor’s office in Tunceli received his petition.
The applicant received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that Bira Bozoğlu appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.)
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 23 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village and to use his property.
On 27 August 2001 the Governor’s office in Tunceli received his petition.
The applicant received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that other persons with the name “Kırmızıtaş” appear to be the owners of the property in question.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 19 October 2001 the applicant sent a petition, dated 13 August 2001, to the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
He received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
The applicant is a retired worker who owns property in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli. It is to be noted that on the documents submitted to the Court, other persons with the family name “Güngör” appear to be the owners of the property in question.
Although he was not a permanent resident of Karataş, the applicant used to spend his holidays in his house in the village, prior to the evacuation of the village.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property.
On 5 October 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Presidency of the Parliament in Ankara requesting compensation for his loss on account of the destruction of his house in Karataş and permission to return to his village.
On 8 October 2001 the Presidency of the Parliament received his petition.
The applicant received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where she owns property. It is to be noted that, on the documents submitted to the Court, other persons with the family name “Ağgül” appear to be the owners of the property in question.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and her family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
In 2000 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to her village.
On 11 April 2000 she received the following response from the State of Emergency Unit of the Governor’s office in Tunceli:
“Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 23 August 2001 the applicant lodged a further petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli.
The applicant received no response to her above petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicants lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where they own property. The applicants also own land in the neighbouring village of Cevizlidere.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicants’ property. The applicants and their families then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 23 August 2001 the applicants lodged a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli to be submitted to the Ministry of the Interior. In their petition the applicants alleged that their houses had been burned down and their village evacuated on 5 October 1994, and that they were denied access to their lands in Karataş and Cevizlidere since then. They requested compensation for their loss and permission to return to their villages.
They received no response to their petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that the applicant’s father Kazım Kırmızıtaş appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 19 October 2001 the applicant lodged a petition, dated 13 August 2001, with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village.
He received no reply to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Karataş, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property. It is to be noted that Bira Bozoğlu appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court.
On 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Karataş on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to Istanbul, where they currently live.
On 23 August 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Governor’s office in Tunceli requesting permission to return to his village and to use his property.
On 27 August 2001 the Governor’s office in Tunceli received his petition.
The applicant received no response to his petition within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.
The official records indicated that the inhabitants of Eğrikavak and Karataş had evacuated their village on account of intense terrorist activities in the region and threats issued by the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) terrorist organisation against the villagers. The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village.
Currently there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages. Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages. In this connection, in a letter of 15 October 2002 the District Governor of Ovacık informed the applicants that they could return to their villages and resume their economic activities if they wished. He further noted that all villages were open for re-settlement and that the authorities had been carrying out maintenance work to repair the infrastructure of the villages in the region.
On 14 July 2004 the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by the Grand National Assembly and entered into force on 27 July 2004 (“Compensation Law”). That Law provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the Convention grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages.
In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in seventy-six provinces. Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation.
The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained approximately 170,000. A further 800 persons, whose applications were pending before the Court, had also applied to the compensation commissions. Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained.
A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Court’s decision of İçyer v. Turkey (no. 18888/02, §§ 44-54, 12 January 2006) and in its judgment of Doğan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 88038811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, §§ 31-35, ECHR 2004-VI).


ITEMID: 001-98318
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: BGR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: TSENOV v. BULGARIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Tseno Hristov Tsenov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Sofia. He was represented before the Court by Mr K. Mihalkov, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 June 2002 the applicant brought an action against his brother before the Botevgrad District Court. He contended that he and his brother were co-owners of a plot of land and a house in Botevgrad. As his brother possessed the land and the house, the applicant sought the division of the property and compensation.
On 12 June 2002 Judge T. of the Botevgrad District Court instructed the applicant to indicate the manner in which he had acquired ownership of the property at issue and to present a plan of it and a tax valuation report.
On 28 June 2002 the Botevgrad District Court issued a certificate authorising the applicant to receive a certified copy of the plan of the property from the local municipality.
In reply to Judge T.’s instructions of 12 June 2002, on 8 July 2002 the applicant explained in writing that he and his brother had inherited the property from their parents. His father had died in 1963. In 1969 his mother had transferred the title of the property to his brother but in the applicant’s view this contract had been null and void because his mother had not been the sole owner. In 2001 the applicant’s brother had conveyed the title of the property to his son, the applicant’s nephew.
In addition to his initial claims for division and for compensation, the applicant requested that the 2001 contract whereby the property at issue had been acquired by his nephew be declared null and void.
The applicant enclosed with the statement of 8 July 2002 a photocopy of a plan of the property issued on 1 April 2002, and a photocopy of a tax valuation report.
In another statement, also dated 8 July 2002, the applicant requested the Botevgrad District Court to provide him with a certificate authorising him to obtain a certified copy of the plan and the original tax valuation report of the property from the local municipality.
On 8 July 2002 Judge T. issued new instructions to the applicant to further clarify his claims. She decided not to issue any decision in respect of the applicant’s request for a court certificate until those clarifications were provided.
In written statements of 19 and 25 July 2002 the applicant made the necessary clarifications in respect of his claims. In an additional statement of 29 July 2002 he requested that the District Court examine solely his claim concerning the nullity of the 2001 donation contract and withdrew the remaining claims. He urged the court to examine that claim, pointing out that the documents he had submitted contained all the relevant information.
On 2 September 2002 Judge T. made a handwritten note on the applicant’s statement of 25 July 2002 with instructions to the Botevgrad District Court’s registry to issue a certificate in respect of the plan of the property. At the same time, she instructed the applicant to provide a certified original copy of the plan and an original tax valuation report.
The applicant failed to comply with those instructions.
On 16 October 2002 Judge T. adopted a decision whereby the proceedings were discontinued since the applicant’s statement of claim had not been completed with the necessary documents.
The applicant appealed. He argued that he had been unable to obtain a certified copy of the plan and an original tax valuation report of the property.
On 19 December 2002 the Sofia Regional Court upheld the decision to discontinue the proceedings. Following a further appeal by the applicant, in a final decision of 19 May 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts’ decisions. It pointed out that the plan had been necessary in order to identify the property exactly, and the tax valuation report in order to calculate the court fee due. Since the applicant had failed to provide these documents, the proceedings had rightly been discontinued.
Articles 98 and 99 of the Bulgarian Code of Civil Procedure 1952, in force at the relevant time, set out the procedural requirements for the validity of statements of claim. In particular, Article 98 § 2 specified that all relevant written evidence had to be submitted with the statement of claim.
Article 100 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code provided that where a statement of claim did not comply with the said requirements, the plaintiff was to be instructed to rectify the deficiencies, including to submit any relevant documents. In the event of failure to do so, by a decision of the respective court the statement of claim and the documents submitted were to be returned to the plaintiff and the proceedings discontinued. That decision was subject to appeal.
By Article 148 of the Code, the courts could issue certificates to be used by the parties to obtain documents from other state institutions.
For certain types of civil claims, such as claims for division of property or claims for the nullification of contracts concerning real property, court fees are determined as a percentage of the value of the property at issue, calculated on the basis of its tax valuation.
Property plans and tax valuation reports are official documents issued by local municipalities.
There is no statutory limitation in time for seeking that a contract be declared null and void.


ITEMID: 001-91569
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2009
DOCNAME: KUPREYANOV v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Nikolay Yakovlevich Kupreyanov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Moscow. He was represented before the Court by Ms A.I. Panicheva, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Moscow.
On 6 August 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Khamovnicheskiy district of Moscow instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant upon an application lodged by his father on suspicion of fraudulent acquisition of property rights over a collection of works of art of the applicant’s grandfather, a Russian graphic artist.
On 6 October 2002 the proceedings were suspended since “the person accused [had] not [been] identified”.
On 10 October 2002 the prosecutor quashed this decision, relying on the fact that criminal proceedings had been initiated against a specific person (the applicant). It extended the investigation deadline until 10 November 2002 and remitted the case for additional investigation.
On 6 November 2002 the police for the first time questioned the applicant as an accused.
On 10 November 2002 the proceedings were again suspended “since the accused [had] not [had] a real opportunity to participate in the investigation”. The police referred to the fact that the applicant could not be found at his home address over a public holiday weekend (7 November).
On 11 November 2002 the proceedings were resumed and the investigation deadline was extended until 10 December 2002. On 18 November 2002 charges were brought against the applicant and an undertaking not to leave his place of residence was imposed on him.
On 10 December 2002 the case was sent for trial to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow.
At least twenty-seven hearings were scheduled, fourteen of which were adjourned: six times due to the fact that the judge was busy in unrelated proceedings; three times due to the failure to attend by the prosecution and the victim (the applicant’s father); twice due to the failure of the applicant’s lawyer to appear; once due to the failure of both the applicant and his lawyer to appear; once due to the change of prosecutor in the case; and three times due to requests, apparently lodged by both parties, to consult the case file. From 25 July 2003 to 19 September 2003 no hearings were held as an expert examination was being carried out. From the beginning of October to the end of December 2003 no hearings took place.
On 18 June 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow returned the applicant’s criminal file to the prosecutor’s office for additional investigation. It found that an additional investigation was needed to clarify certain points and that breaches of the rules of procedure had taken place during the investigation. In particular, the applicant had not been properly charged. Accordingly, the court remitted the case to the prosecution authorities with instructions to rectify this shortcoming and also to gather additional evidence.
The applicant appealed against this decision, but on 7 October 2004 the Moscow City Court refused to entertain the applicant’s complaint, since the domestic law did not provide for the possibility of appeal against this kind of decision.
On 15 October 2004 the prosecutor’s office returned the file to the police for additional investigation and correction of the procedural defects.
On 15 November 2004 the proceedings were suspended. This decision was later declared unfounded and unlawful by the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow, and on 23 March 2005 the proceedings were resumed.
Following the additional investigation, the file was again submitted to the prosecutor’s office, which on 11 May 2005 once again sent it back to the police for additional investigation.
On 27 May 2005 the investigative authorities terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant because there was no indication of a criminal offence and informed him about his right to rehabilitation and compensation for damage. The undertaking not to leave his place of residence was lifted accordingly.


ITEMID: 001-85480
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: MDA
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: CASE OF DACIA S.R.L. v. MOLDOVA
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Just satisfaction reserved
JUDGES: Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Stanislav Pavlovschi
TEXT: 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6. In 1997 the Government of Moldova submitted to Parliament a bill “On the Privatisation Programme for 1997-1998”. Parliament adopted the Act in 1997. The annex to the Act listed the State property to be privatised, which included the four-star “Dacia” hotel. The Act established that the Department for the Privatisation of State Property (“the Department”) would organise the privatisation of the property listed in the annex.
7. The Department created an Auction Commission. In December 1998 the Auction Commission published an advertisement for privatisation of the hotel and set a reserve price of 20 million Moldovan lei (MDL) (2,006,782 United States Dollars (USD)). In order to be allowed to participate in the auction, each participant was required to deposit MDL 1 million in the Department’s account.
8. The applicant company’s predecessor, “Selikat-Mix” (“S.”), participated in the auction and on 23 January 1999 was announced as the winner, having offered MDL 20,150,000. In order to be able to pay that amount, S. concluded a contract with an Austrian company, “Kungan Overseas Corp.”, for a loan of USD 2.2 million. According to the terms of the contract, S. was to repay the loan within one year and to pay 15% interest during that time. Failure to repay the loan would result in a penalty of 0.2% of the outstanding debt for each day of delay (subject to any eventual prolongation of the period of repayment), while a failure to pay the interest would result in a penalty of 0.1% of the outstanding debt for each day of delay.
9. At S.’s request, on 29 January 1999 the Auction Commission decided to extend the period for the payment of the auction price until 17 February 1999.
10. On 8 February 1999 S. obtained a certificate from the National Bank of Moldova confirming the credit agreement with “Kungan Overseas Corp.”. It transferred MDL 20,150,000 to the State budget within the new deadline established by the Auction Commission. On 18 February 1999 it concluded a contract with the Department for the purchase of the hotel.
11. In June 1999 S. was re-registered as “Dacia S.R.L.” (the applicant company). On 13 September 1999 the applicant company purchased from the Chişinău municipality the 0.21 hectares of land on which the hotel was situated, for MDL 50,840 (EUR 4,395).
12. According to the applicant company, in the years following the purchase of the hotel large sums of money were spent on its renovation and the purchase of new furnishings and equipment.
13. In 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office initiated a criminal investigation into the alleged unlawfulness of the hotel’s privatisation. It established that no criminal act had been committed and closed the investigation on 30 August 2000.
14. On 31 January 2003 “Kungan Overseas Corp.” assigned its credit rights in respect of the loan to the applicant company to the Belgian company “Vikol NV” (V.). On 18 February 2003 the applicant company pledged the hotel and the land as a guarantee for the loan from V. In view of the applicant company’s failure to repay the loan, V. claimed in court the right to become the hotel’s owner.
15. On 23 June 2003 the Regional Economic Court in Chişinău accepted that claim and ordered the transfer of the hotel to V. The State Chancellery requested the annulment of that order. On 25 July 2003 the Chişinău Regional Economic Court annulled the order of 23 June 2003 in light of the judgments of the Economic Court of 6 June 2003 and the Supreme Court of Justice of 24 July 2003 (in the annulment proceedings described below).
16. On 11 January 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office initiated court proceedings in the interest of the State (namely, the State Chancellery, a subdivision of the Government which was the former administrator of the hotel) against S. and the Department, seeking the annulment of the hotel’s privatisation and repayment to the applicant company of the price paid.
17. On an unspecified date the Prosecutor General requested the court to designate the applicant company as respondent in the case, since the respondent it had previously designated in its claim (S.) had ceased to exist. On 31 March 2003 the Economic Court of Moldova accepted that request and ordered that the applicant company be summoned to its next hearing.
18. The Prosecutor General did not pay any court fees to initiate those proceedings, by virtue of an exemption provided for by law for court actions initiated by him in the interests of the State. In respect of the limitation period, he referred to Article 86 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 40 below).
19. On 6 June 2003 the Economic Court of Moldova accepted the Prosecutor General’s request and annulled the Auction Commission’s decision of 23 January 1999 and the contract of 18 February 1999 for the sale of the hotel. The applicant company was ordered to return the hotel to the State Chancellery and the Ministry of Finance was ordered to repay to the applicant company MDL 20,150,000 (EUR 1,219,055 at the time).
20. The reasons given by the Economic Court of Moldova for finding that the privatisation had been unlawful were: (a) the State Chancellery, as the former administrator of the hotel, had not given its agreement to the sale; (b) S. (the applicant company’s predecessor) had failed to pay the entire amount within seven days of winning the auction, as required by the auction regulation; and (c) the price paid was some MDL 5 million (EUR 511,996) lower than the hotel’s real value. The court found that the Auction Commission’s decision to extend the period during which S. could pay for the hotel had been taken ultra vires. However, the court did not annul the decision to extend the time-limit or the decision setting the reserve price at MDL 20 million, nor did any other authority. The court also noted that S. had been the only participant in the privatisation auction, but did not indicate whether this was contrary to any law.
The court ordered the Department to return to the applicant company the price paid for the hotel in 1999 (MDL 20,150,000).
21. The court finally ordered that each of the parties pay half of the court fees, that is, MDL 302,340 (EUR 18,291), finding that both the authorities and the applicant company had acted in bad faith because of the above-mentioned failure to follow the auction procedure correctly. In particular, the applicant company was accused of contributing to reducing the hotel’s privatisation price.
22. The applicant company appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice, arguing that it had been a good faith buyer and had complied with all the requirements set by the State authorities during the privatisation, and that the court action brought against it by the Prosecutor General’s Office was out of time since it had been lodged some four years after the relevant events.
23. On 8 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice noted that the applicant company had paid MDL 50,000 (EUR 3,114) in court fees out of the MDL 453,100 (EUR 28,227) required. The court requested payment of the full amount of fees. The applicant company asked for permission to pay in instalments over a three-month period, but was granted sixteen days. It submitted documents confirming its inability to pay and relied on the fact that all of its assets had been seized by the authorities. On 24 July 2003 the court refused to examine the appeal because of the failure to pay the entire amount of the court fees. That decision was final.
24. The Prosecutor General initiated new proceedings “in the interests of the State” requesting the annulment of the contract concluded between the applicant company and the municipality for the purchase of the land on which the hotel was situated.
25. On 27 October 2003 the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court of Moldova accepted that claim and annulled the contract for the purchase of the land because the land could not be separated from the hotel itself.
26. On 19 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that judgment.
27. On 25 July 2003 the Commission on Transferring the Assets of “Dacia” S.R.L. to the State began its activity in order to enforce the judgment of 6 June 2003. By 7 August 2003 the hotel was transferred to its new owner, the State Chancellery (see paragraph 19 above).
28. On 29 July 2003 the applicant company sent the warrant for the enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2003 to the Decisions Enforcement Department. It continued to write to various authorities about the non-enforcement of the judgment.
29. The Department of Privatisation and Administration of State Property requested an interpretation of the text of the judgment of 6 June 2003. The applicant company also requested an interpretation and a re-evaluation of the amount it had been awarded by that judgment, in order to take account of the effects of inflation on the value of the award.
30. On 8 October 2003 the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court gave an explanatory decision in which it identified the Ministry of Finance as responsible for repaying the applicant company the price of the hotel. It also rejected the applicant company’s claim for re-evaluation of the award since the hotel had been bought in Moldovan lei and not in any foreign currency and the law did not provide for compensation for the effects of inflation in cases such as that under consideration. The court informed the applicant company of its right to lodge a separate claim for any investments made for the repair and furnishing of the hotel.
31. On 13 November 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that judgment. However, it annulled, as exceeding the powers of interpretation of judgments, the lower court’s explanation that part of the judgment of 6 June 2003 could be enforced even if the applicant company had not been repaid any of the hotel’s price. The hotel remained in the possession of the State.
32. On 3 December 2003, in view of the apparent lack of resources in the State budget which was preventing enforcement of the judgment in its favour, the applicant company requested that the Decisions Enforcement Department enforce the judgment by selling the “Dacia” hotel and the underlying land.
33. On 4 February 2004 the warrant for the enforcement of the interpretative judgment of 8 October 2003 was sent to the Ministry of Finance.
34. The judgment of 6 June 2003 was fully enforced in instalments in the period between 13 April and 27 October 2004.
35. The applicant company initiated court proceedings against the Government (including the Ministry of Privatisation and the Ministry of Finance) claiming compensation for damage caused to it as a good faith buyer of the hotel. The damages sought MDL 16,157,774 (equivalent to EUR 979,259) included the value of repairs and new equipment, the penalties for the delay in repaying the loan to V., sums of money taken from the hotel when it was transferred to the State and interest for the use of MDL 20,150,000 over four years, as well as compensation for the effects of inflation on that amount. The above amount included a deduction of amounts corresponding to the applicant company’s profits from the hotel during the relevant period. It submitted that the State had committed the errors referred to in the judgment of 6 June 2003 and that the State should therefore bear the consequences of those mistakes.
36. On 10 March 2005 the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court of Moldova rejected these claims. The court found that the applicant company could not claim to have been a good faith buyer, since it had failed to pay for the hotel within seven days as prescribed by the auction regulations. The court also found that the judgment of 6 June 2003 had established the applicant company’s complicity in “contributing to reducing the hotel’s price” (without giving any details), thus excluding the applicant company’s good faith as a basis for claiming compensation, and that this also applied in respect of the claim for interest on its money in the State’s possession.
37. The court rejected the argument that the State had obtained unjust enrichment since there was a legal basis for the increase in its assets – the contract with the applicant company for the purchase of the hotel. The argument that the State had offered for sale an object affected by hidden legal impediments was also rejected as unfounded, despite the authorities’ failure to observe certain rules during the privatisation of the hotel (such as obtaining the State Chancellery’s agreement). Since the applicant company had known from the hotel’s by-laws that the Chancellery was its founder and since the latter had not given its approval for the privatisation, the applicant company could not claim that it had not known of the legal impediment at issue.
38. The applicant company appealed but was unable to pay the court fees MDL 242,349 (approximately EUR 14,600). It requested a court fee waiver until after the judgment, in view of the fact that it had transferred to its creditor all the money received from the Ministry of Finance after the judgment of 6 June 2003 and that it had no alternative sources of income, as confirmed by relevant bank statements.
39. On 4 May 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant company’s request for a court fee waiver. It informed the applicant company that the appeal could not be examined on account of the failure to pay the court fees. The new time-limit for paying the court fees was 25 May 2005; the applicant company did not meet this deadline.
40. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code, in force at the relevant time, provide:
“Article 74
The general limitation period for protection through a court action of the rights of a [natural] person is three years; it is one year for lawsuits between State organisations, collective farms and any other social organisations.
The competent court ... shall apply the limitation period whether or not the parties request such application.
Expiry of the limitation period prior to the initiation of the court proceedings constitutes a ground for rejecting the claim.
If the competent court ... finds that the action was not commenced within the limitation period for well-founded reasons, the right in question shall be protected.
The limitation period does not apply:
...
(2) to claims by State organisations regarding the restitution of State property found in the unlawful possession of ... other organisations ... and of citizens;”.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-88748
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: HUN
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: CASE OF PATYI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 11;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
JUDGES: András Sajó;Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky
TEXT: 5. The applicants are forty-eight Hungarian nationals (see Appendix).
6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7. The applicants were creditors, together with 40,000 other individuals, of an insolvent private company. Since they were unable to obtain their outstanding claims, they intended to hold a series of demonstrations between 7 July and 20 August 2004 in front of the Prime Minister’s private residence in Budapest. The applicant submitted photographs of the scene of the proposed events. According to these photographs, the Prime Minister’s house is situated on a two-lane road in a residential area composed of villas. Across the street from that property, between parked cars and the fence of another villa, there is a footpath parallel to which is a strip of grass which is over five metres wide. The applicant stated that the participants in the planned demonstrations intended only to occupy this pedestrian zone.
8. The first applicant, István Patyi (“the applicant”), was the main organiser of the events. He notified the Budapest Police Department as prescribed by the law. On 5 July 2004 the police prohibited the demonstrations. The applicant sought judicial review. On 8 July 2004 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the police.
9. In the resumed proceedings, the police again prohibited the demonstrations on 10 July 2004. The applicant sought judicial review. The Budapest Regional Court dismissed his action on 15 July 2004.
10. In the meantime, the applicant and some fifteen other private individuals – according to the applicant’s submissions, “disguising themselves as tourists” – appeared before the Prime Minister’s house. The police were also present, but since the applicant informed them that they did not intend to “demonstrate”, they were not prevented from walking in front of the Prime Minister’s house and they then left the scene undisturbed. They did not cause any hindrance or inconvenience to the traffic or other pedestrians.
11. Subsequently, the applicant notified the police of another demonstration planned for 1 November 2004 for the same reasons and at the same spot. The planned number of demonstrators was twenty. The head of the Budapest Police Department, relying on section 8 of Act no. III of 1989 on the Right of Assembly (“the Assembly Act”), prohibited the event on 28 October 2004.
12. The police were of the view that the pavement was not wide enough to secure the necessary space for the demonstrators and other pedestrians at the same time. Therefore, in order to prevent possible accidents and confrontations between the demonstrators and passers-by, it would be necessary to close half the street. They pointed out that on the street in question three bus services operated on a regular basis and that on 1 November, All Saints’ Day, the traffic was expected to be heavier since many people would visit cemeteries that day. The police, therefore, having obtained the expert opinion of the Department of Traffic Administration, held that the demonstration would cause a disproportionate hindrance to the traffic, which could not be secured by alternative means. The applicant sought judicial review.
13. On 5 November 2004 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It established that the police decision had been in compliance with the law and in particular with Article 11 of the Convention.
14. Subsequently, the applicants intended to organise other demonstrations limited to twenty persons. On 18 November 2004 the applicant notified the police that on 30 November, 1 December, 14 December and in the afternoon of 24 December 2004 demonstrations were to take place, again in front of the Prime Minister’s house. On 19 November 2004 the head of the Budapest Police Department prohibited these events.
15. The police reiterated that the pavement was not wide enough to secure the necessary space for the demonstrators and other pedestrians at the same time. Therefore, in order to prevent possible accidents and confrontations between them, half the street would need to be closed. It pointed out that on the street in question three bus services operated on a regular basis and, in winter, the traffic was expected to be heavier since many people left for the ski resorts around Budapest via that street. It added that there was also a possibility of heavy snowfalls and that it would be difficult to secure alternative routes.
16. The police, therefore, obtaining the expert opinion of the Department of Traffic Administration, held that the demonstrations would cause a disproportionate hindrance to the traffic, in particular to the buses, which could not be secured by alternative means.
17. The applicant sought judicial review. He stated that his aim was to hold peaceful, silent demonstrations lasting only twenty minutes. The only ‘action’ planned was to stand in line in front of the Prime Minister’s house, with twenty participants.
18. On 26 November 2004 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion. It established that the police decision had been in compliance with the law and the Convention.
19. On 12 December 2004 the Budapest Public Transportation Company officially informed the applicant that on 24 December 2004 no buses would be running after 4.19 p.m.
20. The Constitution of the Republic of Hungary (Act no. 20 of 1949 as amended) provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“The Republic of Hungary acknowledges the right to peaceful assembly and secures its free exercise.”
21. The relevant provisions of Act no. 3 of 1989 on Freedom of Assembly (“the Assembly Act”) read as follows:
“(3) The exercise of freedom of assembly shall not constitute a crime or an incitement to crime; moreover, it should not result in the infringement of the rights and freedoms of others.”
“The organisation of an event held in the public domain shall be notified to the competent police headquarters according to the place of the event, and in Budapest to the Budapest Police Headquarters, three days prior to the planned date of the event. The obligation to notify the police lies with the organiser of the event.”
“(1) If the holding of an event subject to prior notification seriously endangers the proper functioning of the representative bodies or courts, or the circulation of traffic cannot be secured by another route, the police may ban the holding of the event at the place or time indicated in the notification, within forty-eight hours of receipt of the notification by the authority.”
“(1) No appeal shall lie against the decision of the police, but the organiser may seek judicial review of the administrative decision within three days of its notification.”
“(1) The police shall disperse the event if the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly contravenes subparagraph 3 of section 2 or if the participants appear at the event ... in possession of arms, or if an event subject to prior notification is held without notification, ... or despite a decision banning the event. ...
(3) If an event is dispersed, the participants may seek judicial review within fifteen days with a view to the establishment of the illegality of the dispersal.”
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 11


ITEMID: 001-5312
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: GBR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2000
DOCNAME: SHACKELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Elisabeth Palm;Gaukur Jörundsson;Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: The applicants are British national, born in 1957 and living in Wiltshire. She is represented before the Court by Mr Neil Feirn, may be summarised as follows.
A.
The applicant commenced a long-term relationship with Ian Green in September 1978. The couple never married but lived together until Ian Green died, in September 1995, aged 39, from an accident at work. The couple had three children, Eleanor Clemency born on 15 June 1989, Georgina Miranda born on 11 July 1991 and Harrison Thomas born on 13 November 1994.
Ian Green worked as a self-employed builder and paid full social security and national insurance contributions as a self-employed earner. His contribution record was such that had he been married to the applicant, she would have been entitled to social security benefits as his widow on his death.
On 17 February 1996 the applicant submitted a claim for widow’s benefits (widow’s payment and widowed mother’s allowance) to the Benefits Agency. Her claim was rejected on 29 February 1996 on the basis that widow’s benefits could only be paid where the claimant had been married to the person who had died. The applicant appealed the decision on 19 March 1996, arguing a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). The Social Security Appeal Tribunal rejected her appeal, stating that an individual could not rely on the Convention in domestic courts. The applicant was granted leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner on 7 December 1996. On 23 March 1998 Commissioner Levenson dismissed her appeal, stating that she had no remedy under domestic law or the Convention in a domestic court. The applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on 16 June 1998 and was refused leave on 29 June 1998.
The applicant is currently working full-time. She receives child benefit for her three children amounting to GBP 35.70 per week. She receives no other social security benefits although she did receive a lump sum pension from a private insurance policy taken out by Ian Green during his life. If the applicant were entitled to receive social security benefits equivalent to those to which a married woman in similar circumstances to herself would be entitled, she would be GBP 87.30 per week better off. She would also have received a one-off Widow’s Payment of GBP 1,000.
B. Relevant domestic law
Under United Kingdom law, certain social security benefits, including Widow’s Payment, Widowed Mother’s Allowance, and Widow’s Pension, are paid for out of the National Insurance Fund. By Section 1 of the 1992 Act, the funds required for paying such benefits are to be provided by means of contributions payable to the Secretary of State for Social Security by earners, employers and others, together with certain additions made to the Fund by Parliament. It makes no difference to the contributions payable whether someone is single or married.
1. Widow’s Payment
Under Section 36 of the 1992 Act, a woman who has been widowed is entitled to a widow’s payment (currently a lump sum payment of GBP 1,000) if:
she is under pensionable age at the time when her husband died, or he was not then entitled to a Category A retirement pension;
(ii) her husband satisfied certain specified social security contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the 1992 Act. of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
2. Widowed Mother’s Allowance
Under Section 37 of the 1992 Act, in so far as relevant, a woman who has been widowed (and who has not remarried) is entitled to a mother’s allowance on certain conditions, the following being the relevant conditions to the circumstance of the present case:
(i) her husband satisfied the contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the Act; and
(ii) she is entitled to receive child benefit in relation to a son or daughter of herself and her late husband.
The Widowed Mother’s Allowance currently amounts to GBP 62.70 per week, with an extra GBP 9.90 per week in respect of the eldest eligible child, and a further GBP 11.30 per week in respect of other children.
3. Widow’s Pension
Under Section 38 of the 1992 Act, a woman who has been widowed (and who is not remarried) is entitled to a widow’s pension if:
(i) her husband satisfied the contribution conditions set out in a Schedule to the Act; and
(ii) at the date of her husband’s death she was over the age of 45 but under the age of 65; or
(iii) she ceased to be entitled to a widowed mother’s allowance at the time when she was over the age of 45 but under the age of 65.
If the applicant had been married to Ian Green, she could look forward to entitlement to a Widow’s Pension in the future, when she would no longer be entitled to the Widowed Mother’s Allowance.


ITEMID: 001-88318
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: GBR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: SOUTHWORTH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Ralph Southworth, is a British national who was born in 1936 and lives in Lancashire. He was represented before the Court by Royds Rdw, solicitors in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s wife died on 7 October 1994. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 9 November 2000 and was rejected on 13 November 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. He appealed and reconsideration took place on 24 November 2000 whereby the previous decision was upheld. This decision was confirmed by an appeal tribunal on 9 February 2001. The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
The applicant was not in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim.
The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 1426, ECHR 2002-IV and Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, no. 42949/98, §§ 40-41, 25 July 2007.


ITEMID: 001-76152
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: UKR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: CASE OF MURASHOVA v. UKRAINE
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
JUDGES: Peer Lorenzen
TEXT: 5. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Kherson.
6. In 2001 and 2002 the applicant instituted two separate sets of proceedings in the Labour Disputes Commission against the State Enterprise “Khersonskyy Sudnobudivelnyy Zavod” (the “KSZ”), seeking recovery of salary arrears. By decisions of 12 February 2001 and 25 April 2002, the Labour Disputes Commission allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the KSZ to pay the applicant a total of UAH 2,387 in salary arrears.
7. On 28 February 2001 and 6 June 2002 the Komsomolskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kherson instituted enforcement proceedings concerning the decisions of 12 February 2001 and 25 April 2002, respectively.
8. On 6 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the decisions in her favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the debtor’s lack of funds.
9. On 20 May 2005 the applicant was paid the amounts due to her in full.
10. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-18 and 39-41, 27 July 2004).
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-97901
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: DANILINA v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens
TEXT: The applicant, Ms Tamara Viktorovna Danilina, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Samara. She was represented by Ms L. Churkina, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 April 1999 the applicant lodged an action with the Krasnoglinskiy District Court of Samara against her former employer, a municipal company, seeking reinstatement, the annulment of certain orders, the payment of arrears of salary, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
On 5 May 1999 the District Court accepted the case for an examination on the merits and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of a criminal case against the company’s director. The proceedings were resumed on 21 July 1999 and a hearing was scheduled for 23 August 1999.
The applicant did not attend the hearing on 23 August 1999 and the proceedings were then stayed until 12 November 1999 because the judge was on leave. The applicant submitted that she had not been notified of the hearing fixed for 23 August 1999. The hearing listed for 12 November 1999 was re-scheduled at the applicant’s request because she was ill.
On 26 November 1999 the applicant asked the District Court to resume the proceedings. A hearing was scheduled for 8 December 1999. However, that hearing was adjourned because the applicant was ill. On 25 January 2000, following notification by the applicant that she was fit to participate, the District Court fixed a hearing for 4 February 2000.
That hearing was not held as the applicant had requested an adjournment, claiming that she was ill. The next hearing was to take place on 24 February 2000.
Of three hearings listed between 24 February and 20 April 2000, two were postponed because a prosecutor failed to attend, and one was adjourned to allow the defendant to submit additional evidence.
On 20 April 2000 the applicant successfully requested the District Court to stay the proceedings as she was ill. The proceedings were resumed on 3 July 2000 following notification by the applicant that she was able to take part in them. A hearing was scheduled for 19 July 2000. The applicant failed to appear and another hearing was scheduled for 5 September 2000. According to the applicant, she had not been notified of the hearing fixed for 19 July 2000.
Between 5 September 2000 and 14 June 2001 the District Court stayed the proceedings three times, at the applicant’s request. She claimed she was not able to participate because she or her child was ill. In addition, two hearings were postponed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to retain counsel and to enable the defendant to submit additional evidence.
According to the Government, the hearing fixed for 14 June 2001, to which the applicant had been duly summoned, was re-scheduled for 13 July because she did not attend. The applicant submitted that she had not been summoned to the hearing.
No hearings were held between 13 July and 20 August 2001 because the presiding judge was ill.
On 6 September 2001 the District Court disallowed the applicant’s action because she had failed to attend the hearings on 20 August and 6 September 2001 and had not asked for the case to be examined in her absence.
The applicant asked the District Court to quash the decision of 6 September 2001, arguing that owing to her illness she had not been able to attend the hearings on 20 August and 6 September 2001, to which she, in any case, had not been summoned, and that she had not been served with a copy of the decision of 6 September 2001 in due time. The proceedings were resumed on 4 March 2002 and the hearing was fixed for 21 March 2002.
Between 21 March and 2 September 2002 the District Court twice stayed the proceedings, acting at the applicant’s request. The latter argued that her poor state of health prevented her from attending. In the meantime, the District Court had sent a letter to the hospital treating the applicant, asking it to provide information about her health. On 19 August 2002 the District Court received a reply stating that the applicant’s illness did not impair her ability to participate effectively in the proceedings.
On 2 September 2002 the District Court held a hearing. The applicant attended, but once again asked for an adjournment, alleging that she was not fit enough to participate effectively. The District Court granted her request and stayed the proceedings.
On 17 September 2002 the applicant asked the District Court to resume the proceedings. The next hearing could not be held until 16 December 2002 because the presiding judge was on leave.
Of six hearings scheduled between 16 December 2002 and 17 April 2003, three were adjourned at the defendant’s request to allow for the provision of additional evidence and pending the outcome of related appeal proceedings before another court, and two were postponed because the applicant was unfit to participate.
On 17 April 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action.
The applicant appealed. According to the applicant, she had been in hospital and had telephoned the Registry of the Samara Regional Court to find out the date of the appeal hearing. She was informed that the appeal hearing had been scheduled for 23 June 2003. The applicant stated that she had sent a letter to the Regional Court asking for an adjournment of the proceedings because she had been ill. The letter reached the Regional Court on 24 June 2003.
The Government, relying on copies of the Regional Court’s summonses and minutes, submitted that the applicant had been informed on 26 May 2003 that an appeal hearing had been scheduled for 2 June 2003. Following the applicant’s failure to attend that hearing, the Regional Court listed a hearing for 23 June 2003 and sent a letter to the applicant informing her of the date and time. On 23 June 2003 the Samara Regional Court, in the applicant’s absence, upheld the judgment of 17 April 2003. On the following day the Regional Court received a request by the applicant for an adjournment of the hearing because she had been admitted to hospital. The Government provided the Court with a copy of the applicant’s letter showing that it had reached the Regional Court on 24 June 2003.
In 2006 the applicant instituted legal proceedings against the housing maintenance authorities and her neighbours, seeking the removal of a metal door installed in an apartment block in which she was renting a flat. On 26 June 2006 the Samara Regional Court, at last instance, dismissed her claim.


ITEMID: 001-4915
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: AUT
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 1999
DOCNAME: SCHOBER v. AUSTRIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: The first applicant is a Slovakian national, born in 1973. The second applicant is an Austrian national, born in 1963. The first applicant is currently resident in Slovakia. The second applicant is currently resident in Germany.
s, may be summarised as follows.
In September 1993 the applicants married in Vienna, where they had established their common residence.
On 30 December 1993 the applicants were arrested and subsequently remanded in custody on suspicion of attempted blackmail and arson.
On 18 March 1994 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) convicted the applicants of attempted aggravated blackmail and arson. It found that they had in November and December 1993 threatened a food store company with poisoning its goods and setting fire to or causing explosions in its shops unless the company paid them Austrian shillings (ATS) 3 or 3,5 million, respectively. Further, they had actually set fire to a number of the company's shops causing damage amounting to ATS 10 millions. The court sentenced the first applicant to fifteen months' imprisonment, of which ten months were suspended on probation, and the second applicant to three years' imprisonment of which two years were suspended on probation. In meting out the sentence the court considered that the second applicant was the main instigator of the crime, while the first applicant had only assisted him in a minor role in carrying out his plan.
On 13 June 1994 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), upon the Public Prosecutor's appeal, increased the first applicant's sentence to three years' imprisonment and the second applicant's sentence to six years' imprisonment. It also ordered that the sentences were not to be suspended on probation.
On 24 February 1995 the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion), relying on section 18 §§ 1 and 2 (1) of the 1992 Aliens Act (Fremdengesetz), according to which a residence ban may be issued against an alien who has been sentenced to more than three months' imprisonment by a final judgment of a domestic court, issued a residence ban of unlimited duration against the first applicant. It noted that she had come to Austria in 1993 and that proceedings relating to her request for a residence permit were still pending. The authority acknowledged that the applicant had, despite the short duration of her stay in Austria, established close links to the country on account of her marriage with an Austrian national. However, having regard to the seriousness of the offences of which she had been convicted, her interest in staying in Austria was outweighed by the public interest in the prevention of crime.
On 2 August 1995 the Vienna Security Authority (Sicherheitsdirektion) dismissed the first applicant's appeal. It confirmed that the residence ban constituted an interference with the first applicant's private and family life, which was necessary for the prevention of crime and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. It had particular regard to the seriousness of the offences committed by the first applicant arguing that there was an evident public interest in preventing such crimes, which outweighed the serious consequences for the applicant's private and family life.
On 11 October 1995 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) refused to deal with the first applicant's complaint and referred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).
On 22 December 1995 the first applicant was conditionally released from prison and immediately re-detained with a view to her expulsion. She was deported to Slovakia a week later.
On 8 February 1996 the Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant's complaint finding that the authorities had correctly weighed the different interests involved (served on 15 May 1996).