ITEMID: 001-22326
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: FRA
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2001
DOCNAME: HAMAÏDI v. FRANCE
IMPORTANCE: 1
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
TEXT: The applicant is a Tunisian national. He was born in 1964 and lives in Tunisia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant came into France in 1964 when he was four months old and lived there continuously with his family until he was deported to Tunisia in July 1995. He has eight brothers and sisters, five of whom have French nationality. He received all his school education in France. On 30 May 1996 he married a French national. He also has a twelve-year-old daughter of French nationality from a previous relationship.
In a judgment of 15 May 1995 the Carcassonne Criminal Court sentenced the applicant, who had a residence permit valid from 11 April 1983 to 10 April 1986, to three months’ imprisonment for attempted burglary, but did not enforce his previous suspended sentences. The court also dismissed his application for the prison sentence to run concurrently with the sentence imposed by the same court on 17 April 1985 for a handling offence. In a judgment of 21 January 1986 the Montpellier Court of Appeal upheld that judgment after noting, inter alia, that the applicant already had a number of earlier convictions.
The applicant did not apply for renewal of his residence permit when it expired on 10 April 1986.
On 25 September 1986 the Auxerre Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to eight months’ imprisonment, together with a three-year prohibition on residing on French territory, for theft offences and possession of narcotics.
In a judgment of 7 July 1987 the Carcassonne Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to one month’s imprisonment, together with a three-year prohibition on residing on French territory, for unlawfully entering French territory. In a judgment of 13 October 1987 the Montpellier Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 21 February 1989 it dismissed an application to have the exclusion order lifted.
On 9 September 1994 the Chalon-sur-Saône Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to fifteen months’ imprisonment, together with a three-year prohibition on residing on French territory, for burglary and illegally staying in France. In a judgment of 3 November 1994 the Dijon Court of Appeal increased the prison sentence to eighteen months. It noted, among other things, that the applicant had entered France illegally in 1992 and had since been staying there without a valid residence permit. The applicant appealed on points of law, but did not lodge any grounds in support of his appeal.
On 9 January 1995 the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal.
On 22 July 1995 the applicant was deported.
On 31 July 1995 the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal to have the order excluding him from French territory lifted. In a judgment of 14 December 1995 the Dijon Court of Appeal dismissed his application on the following grounds:
“Hamaïdi Rezeck has applied for the additional measure prohibiting him from residing on French territory to be lifted on account of the material and financial difficulties he has encountered in Tunisia since being forcibly repatriated.
Hamaïdi Rezeck left France on 22 July 1995 and wrote to the court on 31 July 1995. The difficulties he has encountered, assuming them to be genuine, are surmountable and do not in any way justify lifting the prohibition order especially as the individual in question has been convicted under different identities, lives by his wits and has no clear profession.
The said application must accordingly be dismissed”.
On 24 April 1996 the applicant got married in Tunis to a French national, S.C. On 30 May 1996 the marriage-certificate details were entered in the Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths at the French Consulate in Tunis. On 18 January 1997 S.C. had a son, A.C.
In November 1997 the applicant lodged a further application for the order excluding him from French territory to be lifted. He stated that he wanted to live in France again with his family and explained that he had had a French girlfriend at the time of his deportation. In a judgment of 5 March 1998 the Dijon Court of Appeal dismissed his application on the ground that the applicant had no official address, no job and no stable home in France.
At the end of 1998 the applicant, for whom the exclusion order had ceased to be effective on 18 July 1998, applied for a short-stay visa for France. He requested leave to stay there in December 1998 in order to comply with a summons from the Niort tribunal de grande instance issued in divorce proceedings filed by his wife. The French Consulate in Tunis requested him to produce the summons in question. The applicant sent the Consulate a summons to a hearing on 15 March 1999. His application for a visa was refused on an unknown date. According to the Government, it was refused because it was inconsistent.


ITEMID: 001-89823
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: LTU
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: CASE OF ARMONIENE v. LITHUANIA
IMPORTANCE: 2
CONCLUSION: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim);Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky
TEXT: 5. The applicant’s family lived in the village of Ąžuolpamušio, Pasvalys district. Her husband died on 15 April 2002.
6. Prior to his death, on 31 January 2001 the biggest Lithuanian daily newspaper, Lietuvos Rytas, published a front page article entitled “Pasvalys villages paralysed by the fear of death: residents of the remote Lithuanian area shackled by the AIDS threat” (Pasvalio kaimus paralyžavo mirties baimė: nuošalios Lietuvos vietovės gyventojai atsidūrė AIDS grėsmės gniaužtuose). The following statements of particular concern to the applicant’s family were made in the article:
“Notoriously promiscuous, thirty-year old Gitana Biriuk is already sick with this fatal disease ...
An HIV-positive person lives in a village in the Pajiešmenys area. This [is] G. Biriuk, an unmarried mother of two children ...
The father of G. Biriuk’s two children is an inhabitant of Paiešmenių [village] - L. Armonas...
Medics at the Pasvalys hospital confirmed that G. Biriuk is HIV-positive. The woman was taken to hospital with tuberculosis. Blood tests revealed that she was HIV-positive ...
The woman [G. Biriuk] has already been diagnosed with AIDS - this is the last stage of the infection. The disease can last from a year up to ten years but finally ends with death...
Laimis Armonas is HIV-positive...
Last week ... the father of G. Biriuk’s two children, living in Pajiešmenių village, was taken to Pasvalys hospital with a high fever...
L. Armonas is another victim of AIDS...
From the appearance of the patient [reference to L. Armonas] and the symptoms of the disease, the doctors suspected that he might be HIV-positive. The reply recently received from the AIDS centre confirmed the suspicions.”
7. The husband instituted proceedings in the Vilnius City Third District Court, suing the newspaper for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 50,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, or about 14,460 euro (EUR)) for a breach of his right to privacy.
8. On 19 July 2001 the court ruled in his favour. The court found that the defendant had not proved the truthfulness of the published allegations as to the husband’s relationship with G. Biriuk, or that the information about the husband’s state of health, indicating his full name and residence, had been made public with his consent, or met a legitimate public interest in drawing society’s attention to the rising number of HIV cases in Lithuania. Having assessed all the relevant evidence, the court decided that there was no proof that the husband was the father of G. Biriuk’s children. The article humiliated the husband and the publication of information about his private life caused him non-pecuniary damage, had an impact on his health, and a negative influence on his family life and his reputation. It also restricted his family’s opportunities to communicate with others. The court noted that in 2001 the statutory capital of the newspaper company - JSC Lietuvos Rytas - was LTL 33,754,700 (approximately EUR 9,776,037). However, the court concluded that the information had not been made public deliberately, and applied Article 54 § 1 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public. Accordingly, it awarded the husband the maximum sum set by this Law in such circumstances, i.e. LTL 10,000 (about EUR 2,896), in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
9. The husband appealed to the Vilnius Regional Court. On 8 October 2001 the court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court’s reasoning.
10. As mentioned above, the husband died on 15 April 2002.
11. On 24 April 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision. It stated that an award exceeding the amount of LTL 10,000 set by the aforementioned legislation could be granted if it were established that information had been published intentionally. The court observed that by printing the article the newspaper had committed two violations: first, it had published information which was not true and which debased the husband’s honour and reputation, and, secondly, it had published data about his private life without his consent. However the Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts had come to the well-founded conclusion that the husband had not proved that the defendant had published information about him deliberately and, therefore, there was no ground to increase the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage fivefold, as envisaged by Article 54 § 1 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public.
12. Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania provides as relevant:
“The private life of a human being shall be inviolable... The law and the courts shall protect everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interference in his private and family life, or from encroachment upon his honour and dignity.“
13. Article 30 of the Constitution provides that compensation for material and non-pecuniary damage suffered by a person shall be established by law.
14. According to Article 71 of the Civil Code applicable at the material time, concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage:
“Mass media, organisations or persons who publish false information degrading the honour and dignity of a person, and also information about a person’s private life without the consent of that person, shall pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The courts will assess the amount of the compensation, between five hundred and ten thousand litai.
In assessing monetary compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused, the courts shall take into consideration the financial status of the person who has caused the damage, the gravity and consequences of the violation and other circumstances important to the case.”
15. Article 6.250 of the Civil Code, concerning non-pecuniary damage and in force since 1 July 2001, reads as follows:
“1. Non-pecuniary damage shall be deemed to be a person’s suffering, emotional experiences, inconvenience, mental shock, emotional depression, humiliation, deterioration of reputation, diminution of opportunities to associate with others, and so on, evaluated by a court in terms of money.
2. Non-pecuniary damage shall be compensated only in cases provided for by laws. Non-pecuniary damage shall be compensated in all cases where it has been incurred due to crime, health impairment or deprivation of life, as well as in other cases provided for by laws. The courts, in assessing the amount of non-pecuniary damage, shall take into consideration the consequences of the damage sustained, the gravity of the fault of the person by whom the damage is caused, his financial status, the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the aggrieved person, and any other circumstances of importance for the case, as well as the criteria of good faith, justice and reasonableness.”
16. The relevant provisions of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public at the material time read as follows:
“1. In producing and disseminating public information, it is mandatory to ensure a person’s right to have his personal and family life respected.
2. Information about a person’s private life may be published, with the exception of the instances stipulated in paragraph three of this Article, only with the consent of that person and if publication of the information does not cause undue harm to that individual.
3. Information concerning private life may be published without the person’s consent in those cases when publication of the information does not cause harm to the person or when the information assists in uncovering violations of the law or crimes, as well as when the information is presented in the examination of the case in an open court process. ...”
“1. A producer and (or) disseminator of public information who publishes information about an individual’s private life ... without the natural person’s consent, also a producer who publishes false information degrading to the honour and dignity of the person, shall pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage to that person in a manner set forth by law. The amount of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage may not be in excess of LTL 10,000, except for cases when the court establishes that false information degrading the honour and dignity of a person has been published intentionally. In such cases the amount may, by a decision of a court, be increased, but not more than fivefold. In each case the amount awarded to the plaintiff may not be in excess of five percent of the annual income of the publisher and (or) disseminator of public information. ...
4. In determining the amount of monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the courts shall take into account the financial circumstances of the person who caused the damage, the gravity of the offence, its consequences and other significant circumstances. ...”
17. Article 52 of the Law on the Health System, restricting the disclosure of information about a person’s health, at the material time provided as follows:
“1. Restriction on the disclosure of information about the state of health of a person is intended to guarantee the inviolability of his private life and state of health.
2. It shall be forbidden to make public in the mass media information about the state of health of a person without his written authorisation...
3. Individual or public health care specialists shall be restricted ... from violating the confidentiality of the information about an individual’s private life or personal health ... which they have acquired while performing professional duties.”
18. The Ruling of the Senate of Judges of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 15 May 1998 no. 1 “On the application of Articles 7 and 71 of the Civil Code and the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public in the case-law of the courts examining civil cases on the protection of honour and dignity”, in so far as relevant, provided as follows:
“18. ... Privacy of the person should be protected when it is established that information about a person’s private life has been disseminated without his or her consent and in the absence of lawful public interest. Lawful public interest is to be understood as the right of society to receive information about the private life of a person ... where it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others from negative impact. The rights of the person are protected irrespective of whether the disseminated information degrades his or her honour and dignity.”
19. The Ruling further stipulated that the producer or disseminator of public information who publishes information about an individual’s private life without his or her consent must compensate for the non-pecuniary damage caused. When assessing the monetary compensation for such damage, the courts should take into consideration the guilt of the defendant, his or her behaviour after the dissemination of the information, the negative impact on the plaintiff’s professional or social life and the form and manner in which the information was disseminated, as well as its content and other relevant circumstances. The monetary compensation could not exceed the limits provided by Article 71 of the Civil Code and Article 54 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public.
20. On 23 January 1970 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 428, containing a Declaration on Mass Communication Media and Human Rights, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“1. There is an area in which the exercise of the right of freedom of information and freedom of expression may conflict with the right to privacy protected by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights. The exercise of the former right must not be allowed to destroy the existence of the latter.
2. The right to privacy consists essentially in the right to live one’s own life with a minimum of interference. It concerns private, family and home life, physical and moral integrity, honour and reputation, avoidance of being placed in a false light, non-revelation of irrelevant and embarrassing facts ... protection from disclosure of information given or received by the individual confidentially...
7. The right to privacy afforded by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities, but also against interference by private persons or institutions, including the mass media. National legislations should comprise provisions guaranteeing this protection.”
21. Recommendation no. R (89) 14 on “The ethical issues of HIV infection in the health care and social settings”, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 24 October 1989 reads, in so far as relevant to the present case, as follows:
“Public health authorities are recommended to:
in relation to reporting of cases:
ensure that the reporting of AIDS cases ... is used for epidemiological purposes only and therefore carried out in strict compliance with appropriate confidentiality regulations and in particular that data is transmitted on a non-identifiable basis to avoid any possible discriminatory use of sensitive health related data, to avoid discouraging individuals from seeking voluntary testing,
in relation to the patient-health care worker relationship:
strongly support respect for confidentiality, if necessary by introducing specific policies and by promoting educational programs for health care workers to clarify confidentiality issues in relation to HIV infection.”
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 8


ITEMID: 001-106259
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2011
DOCNAME: CASE OF FEDORENKO v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1-c;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-2;Non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen
TEXT: 6. The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in St Petersburg.
7. On 18 January 2005 criminal proceedings were opened in connection with an offence of fraud committed by unidentified persons with a view to acquiring a flat in Moscow by way of selling it on behalf of its deceased owner, an offence punishable under Article 159 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code.
8. On 27 April 2005 the applicant was detained on suspicion of having committed that fraud and questioned as a suspect. He denied his involvement in the offence.
9. On the same date the investigating authorities filed a request with the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) to authorise the applicant’s detention on remand.
10. On 28 April 2005 the District Court, composed of judge B., granted the investigator’s request and, with reference to Articles 100 and 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, stating that he “had committed a serious criminal offence punishable under the criminal law with a term of imprisonment of more than two years” and that the investigating authority had grounds to believe that he might abscond and obstruct the investigation, if at liberty. No time-limit for the detention was indicated in the decision.
11. On 3 May 2005 the applicant’s two lawyers lodged an appeal on his behalf against the decision of 28 April 2005 requesting the applicant’s immediate release. They also complained of a violation of the presumption of innocence on account of the District Court’s statement that the applicant “[had] committed a serious criminal offence”.
12. According to the Government, the appeal of 3 May 2005 was received by the District Court on the same date and then sent to the Moscow City Court for further processing. The latter court scheduled a hearing for 17 May 2005. On 16 May 2005 the Moscow City Court received the applicant’s request in which he expressed his wish to participate in person in the examination of his appeal. In the Government’s submission, the Moscow City Court had then to postpone the hearing until 25 May 2005 to be able to comply with the applicant’s request.
13. On 25 May 2005 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 28 April 2005. It noted that, when authorising the applicant’s detention on remand, the District Court had taken into account the fact that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence and had reasonably concluded that the applicant might continue his criminal activity, if at large. The Moscow City Court rejected the argument of the applicant’s legal counsel that the District Court had found the applicant guilty when stating in its decision of 28 April 2005 that he “[had] committed a serious offence”. In this respect the appellate court noted that it was clear that this had been a “technical error”.
14. On 4 May 2005 the applicant was formally charged with fraud punishable under Article 159 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code.
15. On 23 June 2005 the District Court, at the investigator’s request, extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 18 July 2005. It referred to the fact that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence and stated that, if at liberty, the applicant might flee from justice and obstruct the establishment of the truth.
16. On 14 July 2005 the District Court, at the investigator’s request, further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 18 September 2005 on the grounds that the investigation had not been completed and that a number of investigative actions were still to be carried out. The court rejected a request by the applicant’s lawyers, who referred to the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record and that he had psoriasis, to release the applicant on bail, which the applicant’s father undertook to pay, or subject to an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. It stated that there were no grounds for revoking or altering the applicant’s preventive measure, given that he had been charged with a serious ’s personality, there were reasons to believe that he might abscond, continue his criminal activity, threaten witnesses and obstruct the investigation. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Moscow City Court on an unspecified date.
17. On 15 September 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 October 2005. It stated, in particular, that the investigating authorities needed more time to complete the investigation, that the applicant had been accused of a serious criminal offence and that the nature of the charges against him and the fact that the other co-accused were suspected of having committed another serious crime made the court believe that, if released, the applicant might continue his criminal activity, abscond and obstruct the establishment of the truth.
18. On 24 October 2005 the District Court ordered that the applicant should remain in detention until 18 November 2005. The court referred to the same reasons and also to the complex nature of the criminal case against the applicant.
19. On 14 November 2005 the District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 18 January 2006 referring to the same reasons. The Moscow City Court upheld this extension on appeal on 14 December 2005.
20. On 12 January 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 18 March 2006. In its decision the court relied on the seriousness of the criminal offence imputed to the applicant which was punishable under the criminal law by a term of imprisonment ranging between five and ten years. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 27 February 2006.
21. On 17 March 2006 the District Court ordered that the applicant should remain in detention until 27 April 2006. It does not appear that the court gave any reasons other than those to which it had referred earlier.
22. On 17 April 2006 the applicant’s case file was remitted to the District Court for examination on the merits.
23. By a decision of 26 April 2006 the District Court scheduled a hearing in the case and ordered that the applicant should remain in custody. No time-limit for this detention was indicated. The applicant’s request for release was rejected on the ground that the initial decision ordering the applicant’s detention had been taken in accordance with the requirements of Articles 97, 99 and 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure and that, at present, the court found no reason to revoke or change the applicant’s preventive measure, given, in particular, the necessity to ensure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Moscow City Court on 24 May 2006.
24. On 22 September 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial until 17 January 2007. It appears that the District Court gave similar reasons for its decision. On 30 October 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld this decision on appeal.
25. On 25 December 2006 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the court decisions of 26 April and 24 May 2006 in supervisory review proceedings because of a procedural shortcoming concerning the applicant’s co-defendant and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It also ordered that the applicant’s preventive measure should remain unchanged.
26. On 11 January 2007 the District Court further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial until 17 April 2007, with reference to the absence of any grounds for revoking or altering the applicant’s preventive measure in view of the seriousness of the charges against him, his personality and “the circumstances which the court had taken into account when ordering the applicant’s placement in detention, and which remained unchanged at present”. In the Government’s submission, on 19 February 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld this decision on appeal.
27. In a judgment of 16 April 2007 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment.
28. On 23 July 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal, having reduced his sentence to four years and three months’ imprisonment.
29. Since 1 July 2002, criminal-law matters have been governed by the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 174-FZ of 18 December 2001, “the Code”).
30. “Preventive measures” include an undertaking not to leave a town or region, personal surety, bail and detention (Article 98). When deciding on a preventive measure, the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “sufficient grounds to believe” that the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial, reoffend or obstruct the establishment of the truth (Article 97). It must also take into account the gravity of the charge, information on the accused’s character, his or her profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 99). In exceptional circumstances, and when there exist grounds provided for by Article 97, a preventive measure may be applied to a suspect, taking into account the circumstances listed in Article 99 (Article 100). If necessary, the suspect or accused may be asked to give an undertaking to appear (Article 112).
31. The Code makes a distinction between two types of remand in custody: the first being “pending investigation”, that is, while a competent agency – the police or a prosecutor’s office – is investigating the case, and the second being “before the court” (or “pending trial”), at the judicial stage.
32. A custodial measure may only be ordered by a judicial decision in respect of a person who is suspected of, or charged with, a criminal offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment (Article 108). The time-limit for detention pending investigation is fixed at two months (Article 109). A judge may extend that period up to six months (Article 109 § 2). Further extensions may only be granted by a judge if the person is charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences (Article 109 § 3). No extension beyond eighteen months is permissible and the detainee must be released immediately (Article 109 § 4).
33. From the time the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court, the defendant’s detention is “before the court” (or “pending trial”). The period of detention pending trial is calculated up to the date on which the judgment is given. It may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3).
34. If a convict wishes to participate in an appeal hearing, he or she should indicate that wish in the statement of appeal (Article 375 § 2).
35. Upon receipt of the criminal case and the statements of appeal, the judge fixes the date, time and place for a hearing. The parties shall be notified of the date, time and place of the hearing no later than fourteen days before the scheduled hearing (Article 376 §§ 1 and 2).
36. In its resolution no. 1 of 5 March 2004 “On the Application by Courts of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure”, as in force at the relevant time, the Russian Supreme Court noted with regard to the provisions of Article 255 § 3 of the Code, that, when deciding on an extension of a defendant’s detention pending trial, the court should indicate the grounds justifying the extension and its time-limit (paragraph 16).
37. In its ruling no. 245-O-O of 20 March 2008, the Russian Constitutional Court noted that it had reiterated on several occasions (rulings nos. 14-P, 4-P, 417-O and 330-O of 13 June 1996, 22 March 2005, 4 December 2003 and 12 July 2005 respectively) that a court, when taking a decision under Articles 100, 108, 109 and 255 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure on the placement of an individual into detention or on the extension of a period of an individual’s detention, was under obligation, inter alia, to calculate and specify a time-limit for such detention.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 5
6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 5-1
5-3
6-2
VIOLATED_BULLETPOINTS: 5-1-c


ITEMID: 001-97997
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: HUN
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: CASE OF BELENYESI v. HUNGARY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6-1
JUDGES: András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky
TEXT: 4. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.
5. On 1 March 1993 the applicant filed for divorce before the Pest Central District Court.
6. On 6 January 1995 the court dissolved the marriage and placed the couple's minor child with the respondent. It regulated the child maintenance and the use of the family home. On 25 August 1995 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.
7. In the ensuing proceedings concerning the matrimonial property, on 2 February 1999 the court gave the ownership of the commonly used flat and a weekend-house to the applicant while granting the possession of their shop to her ex-husband. It also ordered the applicant to pay the difference in value of the different properties.
8. On appeal, on 25 March 2000 the Budapest Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 23 April 2002 the Supreme Court, finding that the Regional Court's decision had been in compliance with the law, upheld it. This decision was served on the applicant on 19 June 2002.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-101436
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: POL
BRANCH: COMMITTEE
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: CASE OF KOCUREK v. POLAND
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6-1
JUDGES: Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki
TEXT: 6. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bielsko - Biała.
7. On 8 June 2006 the Bielsko-Biała Social Security Board refused to grant the applicant a disability pension. On 20 March 2007 the BielskoBiała Regional Court dismissed his appeal against that decision. On 9 October 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's further appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 November 2007 and two-month time-limit for lodging of a cassation appeal started to run on that date.
8. On 9 November 2007 the applicant requested that a legalaid lawyer be assigned to the case for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 27 November 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal granted his request for legal aid and requested the Katowice Bar Association to assign a lawyer to the case. Subsequently, as the first lawyer assigned by the Bar Association suffered from certain health problems at that time, on 23 January 2008 the Katowice Bar Association assigned another lawyer, Mr J.R., to the case. He was served with the letter informing him of the assignment on 28 January 2008.
9. Subsequently the lawyer requested the Court of Appeal to serve on him its judgment of 9 October 2007. The judgment with the written grounds was served on him on 14 February 2008.
10. In a letter to the applicant dated 29 February 2008 the lawyer explained in detail why he had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation complaint in the case.
11. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure for lodging cassation appeals with the Supreme Court against judgments of the appellate courts are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Siałkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, 22 March 2007; Smyk v. Poland, no. 8958/04, 28 July 2009; Zapadka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, 15 December 2009; Bąkowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, 12 January 2010.
12. On 5 February 2005 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, adopted on 22 December 2004 (Ustawa o zmianie ustawy Kodeks postępowania cywilnego oraz ustawy Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych), entered into force. Under the amended text of Article 398 1 § 5, the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court was extended from thirty to sixty days.
13. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a request for leave to appeal out of time was the only method by which a cassation appeal submitted after the expiry of the timelimit could be admitted for examination (21 April 1997, II CZ 38/97; 27 September 2001, II UZ 51/01). In a further series of decisions the Supreme Court considered that it would be unfair for the legally-aided party to be penalised for the fact that legalaid applications could not be processed quickly enough to make it possible for a cassation appeal to be lodged within a period of thirty days counted from the day of service of the judgment on the party. The parties waiting for legal-aid services cannot be held at fault for shortcomings in the system. A party who was obliged to have recourse to legal aid should not be put in a worse situation than that of a person who did not seek it. A request to appeal out of time should therefore be submitted within seven days from the date on which the legal-aid lawyer could obtain effective access to the case file or had an effective possibility of drafting an appeal (4 March 2005, II UZ 72/04; 27 June 2000, I CZ 62/00), or from the date when the lawyer was informed that he had been assigned to the case by the local Bar Association (11 October 2001, IV CZ 163/01; 17 November 1998, II UZ 122/98; 11 October 2001, IV CZ 163/01;
14. In a resolution adopted by a bench of seven judges of the Supreme Court on 17 February 2009 (III CZP 117/08) that court acknowledged that there had been discrepancies in the manner in which the beginning of the seven-day time limit for submitting an application for leave to appeal out of time by legally-assisted parties had been determined. The court was of the view that applications for leave served the purpose of making access to the Supreme Court for legally-aided parties genuine and effective. Hence, the beginning of the time-limit could not be determined in a mechanical manner in all cases. The courts should instead examine the circumstances of individual cases as a whole and determine that date bearing in mind the genuine possibility for a lawyer to examine the case and prepare a cassation appeal.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-58079
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: GBR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 1996
DOCNAME: CASE OF STUBBINGS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: No violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 14+6-1;No violation of Art. 14+8
JUDGES: John Freeland;N. Valticos;R. Pekkanen
TEXT: 8. Ms Leslie Stubbings was born on 29 January 1957. She was placed by a local authority in the care of Mr and Mrs Webb when she was nearly two years old and adopted by them when she was three. The Webbs had two children, of whom the elder, Stephen, was born on 21 July 1952.
9. Ms Stubbings alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Mr Webb and committed acts of indecency at his instigation on a number of occasions between December 1959 (before her adoption) and December 1971 (when she was fourteen years old). These were of a serious nature, although they did not involve full sexual intercourse.
In addition, she alleges that Stephen Webb forced her to have sexual intercourse with him on two occasions in 1969 when she was twelve and he was seventeen.
10. Since 1976 Ms Stubbings has experienced severe psychological problems, which have led to her admission to hospital on three occasions. She has been variously diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, emotional instability, paranoia, depression and agoraphobia, and she has once attempted suicide.
11. In September 1984, following treatment by a consultant child and family psychiatrist, she allegedly realised for the first time that there might be a connection between the childhood abuse and her mental health problems.
12. On 18 August 1987 she commenced proceedings against her adoptive parents and brother, seeking damages for the alleged assaults. The defendants applied to have the claim dismissed as time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act": see paragraph 35 below).
13. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal which considered the case were bound by earlier authority (Letang v. Cooper: see paragraph 32 below) to hold that Ms Stubbings’ claim was based on a "breach of duty" within the meaning of section 11 of the 1980 Act (see paragraph 35 below).
The limitation period for such actions was three years, either from the date on which the cause accrued or from the date on which the plaintiff first knew the injury in question was both significant and attributable to the defendants. Section 33 of the 1980 Act provided that the court could allow such an action to proceed even if commenced after the expiry of the threeyear period where it would be equitable to do so (see paragraph 35 below).
14. The High Court found in favour of the defendants, ruling that Ms Stubbings’ "date of knowledge" was more than three years before the commencement of proceedings.
The Court of Appeal, however, accepted Ms Stubbings’ argument that although she had always remembered that she had been abused by Mr Webb and Stephen, she did not realise that she had suffered sufficiently serious injury as to justify bringing a claim until September 1984, when she came to understand the causal link between the assaults and her mental health problems.
15. The defendants appealed to the House of Lords (Stubbings v. Webb [1993] Appeal Cases, p. 498). Lord Griffiths, with whom the other four law lords agreed, doubted that the "date of knowledge" was as late as September 1984, since "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that a woman who has been raped does not know that she has suffered a significant injury".
Furthermore, after considering the report of the Tucker Committee (see paragraph 31 below), he held that the words "breach of duty" in section 11 (1) of the 1980 Act did not embrace actions based on intentionally inflicted injuries, such as rape and indecent assault. Instead, these types of claim were subject to the six-year limitation period provided for in section 2 of the 1980 Act. This limit, which could not be disapplied by the court, started to run from the plaintiff’s eighteenth birthday (section 28: see paragraph 35 below). The claim was therefore out of time.
16. Ms J.L. was born in 1962.
She alleges that between 1968 and September 1979 she was frequently abused by her father, who took pornographic photographs of her and subjected her to serious assaults of a sexual nature.
17. Between 1981 and 1991, she suffered from bouts of depression and found it difficult to form relationships. In 1990 she began to have nightmares about her childhood abuse.
Finally, in October 1990, she asked her doctor for help and he referred her to a psychologist. At this time, she allegedly gained insight into the connection between the abuse and her mental health problems for the first time. Initially this worsened her condition, causing her to attempt suicide in December 1990.
18. In January 1991 she consulted solicitors with a view to commencing proceedings for damages against her father. Legal aid was granted and a writ was issued on 26 March 1991.
A medical report prepared in May 1991 for the purposes of the litigation described her as suffering from severe psychological damage, which manifested itself in an inability to trust others, constant mood swings, insomnia and anxiety. According to the report, she was likely to remain damaged for the rest of her life and would have an increased risk of developing a mental illness.
19. Ms J.L. also reported the alleged abuse to the police. They interviewed her and her father, but in September 1991 decided not to bring charges. When she was informed of this decision she made another attempt at suicide.
20. Following the decision of the House of Lords in Stubbings v. Webb (see paragraph 15 above), her civil claim against her father was discontinued on the advice of counsel that it had become time-barred in 1986, six years after her eighteenth birthday.
21. Ms J.P. was born in 1958.
Between the ages of five and seven she attended a state primary school in Highgate, London, but her parents withdrew her in 1966 because she had become depressed and withdrawn and was suffering from nightmares. It appeared that the Deputy Headmaster, a Mr P., had been removing her from lessons, purportedly to look after his two-year-old daughter.
22. From that time onwards, Ms J.P. had difficulty in sustaining relationships and felt "different" and lonely. Following her father’s death in 1985 she suffered extreme feelings of bereavement, which eventually drove her to seek psychiatric help.
She underwent a course of therapy which, in February 1989, prompted her to experience a violent recall of being subjected to sexual abuse by Mr P. She subsequently recovered memories of other assaults by him, including incidents of rape.
23. In October 1991 she instructed solicitors to commence proceedings for damages against Mr P. and a writ was issued on 10 February 1992.
However, legal aid was withdrawn and the action was discontinued following the decision of the House of Lords in Stubbings v. Webb (see paragraph 15 above), because her claim had become time-barred in January 1982.
24. Ms D.S. was born in 1962.
Between 1968 and 1977 she was allegedly subjected to repeated sexual assaults by her father, including acts of rape.
She asserted that, as a result of the abuse, she suffered from feelings of despair, depression, fear and guilt and found it difficult to sustain relationships.
25. On 15 March 1991 D.S.’s father pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent assault based on his abuse of her. He was sentenced to one year’s probation.
26. The applicant considered that this was insufficient punishment and she therefore instituted civil proceedings against her father on 14 August 1992. A report from a psychologist stated that it would have been impossible for her to have taken this step earlier, because she had largely blocked out memories of the abuse as a means of survival.
27. Her action was discontinued on 24 May 1993 following the House of Lords’ judgment in Stubbings v. Webb (see paragraph 15 above), since her claim had been brought outside the six-year time-limit held in that case to apply.
28. Between 1936 and 1974 no fewer than six official bodies reviewed the English law of limitation and reported their findings to Parliament.
29. The first of these, the Law Revision Committee on Statutes of Limitation, recommended in December 1936 that there should be a fixed six-year period for all actions founded in tort, except in cases where the defendant was a public authority, where the period should be one year only. In both cases time should start to run from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
These recommendations were implemented in the Limitation Act 1939.
30. The first suggestion that there should be a shorter limitation period in personal injury cases was made in July 1946 in the Final Report of the Departmental Committee on Alternative Remedies ("the Monckton Committee"), which was asked to review the right to damages for personal injury in the light of recently-created social security legislation. The Committee considered that the six-year period was too long for personal injury claims, and recommended that it should be reduced to three years.
31. In July 1949 the Committee on the Limitation of Actions ("the Tucker Committee") recommended that the same limitation period should apply irrespective of whether the defendant was a public authority or a private person, and that a two-year time bar, extendible to six years in exceptional cases, should be imposed in personal injury actions. The limitation period for other actions founded on tort, including inter alia trespass against the person and false imprisonment, should continue to be six years.
The Committee’s proposals were followed in the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act 1954, except that, instead of the suggested extendible two-year bar, a fixed three-year period was applied to all "actions for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty ... where the damages claimed ... consist of or include damages in respect of personal injury to any person". In cases where the plaintiff was under a legal disability, time would only start to run from the date the disability ceased: thus, in the case of a child, from the date he attained his majority (twentyone at the time the Act was passed, and eighteen after 1 January 1970).
32. The words "actions for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty" which appeared in the 1954 Act (and which were also used in section 11 (1) of the 1980 Act: see paragraph 35 below) were considered by the Court of Appeal in Letang v. Cooper [1965] 1 Queen’s Bench Reports, p. 232. The plaintiff had been sunbathing in the car park of a hotel when the defendant drove his car over her legs. She did not commence proceedings until over three years after the accident. The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate cause of action lay in negligence and that the claim was therefore time-barred. The three judges expressed the opinion that the words "breach of duty" in the 1954 Act should be construed as applying to any cause of action giving rise to a claim for damages for personal injury.
33. In the early 1960s it became apparent that the fixed three-year bar to personal injury actions was causing injustice to some plaintiffs, notably workers who were caused to contract slow-working industrial diseases which it was not possible to detect until after the expiry of the limitation period.
The Limitation Act 1963 was therefore passed, to enable the court to extend the time-limit in cases where the plaintiff could not reasonably have been expected to discover earlier the existence or cause of his injury. However, the provisions enacted proved to be over-complicated and difficult to operate.
34. In May 1974 the Interim Report of the Law Reform Committee on Limitation of Actions in Personal Injury Claims was published. It considered the purpose of having a limitation period, and observed:
"In the first place, it is intended to protect defendants from being vexed by stale claims relating to long-past incidents about which their records may no longer be in existence and as to which their witnesses, even if they are still available, may well have no accurate recollection. Secondly, we apprehend that the law of limitation is designed to encourage plaintiffs not to go to sleep on their rights, but to institute proceedings as soon as it is reasonably possible for them to do so ... Thirdly, the law is intended to ensure that a person may with confidence feel that after a given time he may treat as being finally closed an incident which may have led to a claim against him ... But if the law of limitation is principally designed for the benefit of defendants, it would nevertheless be a mistake to lose sight of the interests of injured persons. A plaintiff who has lost the right to claim damages before he can know of the existence of that right must, in our view, inevitably feel that he has suffered injustice."
In an attempt to balance these interests, the Committee recommended the retention of the three-year period for personal injury actions, but proposed that time should only start to run when the injured person knew, or could reasonably have ascertained, the nature of the injury and its attributability to an act or omission on the part of the defendant. Furthermore, the court should have the power to override the time bar at its discretion.
These proposals were enacted in the Limitation Act 1975, and were retained in the Limitation Act 1980, which was a consolidating statute.
35. The current law as to limitation of civil actions in England and Wales is set out in the Limitation Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act"). The relevant sections are as follows:
"Actions founded on tort
2. An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
...
Actions in respect of wrongs causing personal injuries or death
11. (1) This section applies to any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person.
(2) None of the time-limits given in the preceding provisions of this Act shall apply to an action to which this section applies.
(3) An action to which this section applies shall not be brought after the expiration of the period applicable in accordance with subsection (4) or (5) below.
(4) Except where subsection (5) below applies, the period applicable is three years from:
(a) the date on which the cause of action accrued; or
(b) the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injured.
...
14. (1) In sections 11 and 12 of this Act references to a person’s date of knowledge are references to the date on which he first had knowledge of the following facts:
(a) that the injury in question was significant; and
(b) that the injury was attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission which is alleged to constitute negligence, nuisance or breach of duty; and
(c) the identity of the defendant; and
(d) if it is alleged that the act or omission was that of a person other than the defendant, the identity of that person and the additional facts supporting the bringing of an action against the defendant; and knowledge that any acts or omissions did or did not, as a matter of law, involve negligence, nuisance or breach of duty is irrelevant.
(2) For the purposes of this section an injury is significant if the person whose date of knowledge is in question would reasonably have considered it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person’s knowledge includes knowledge which he might reasonably have been expected to acquire:
(a) from facts observable or ascertainable by him; or
(b) from facts ascertainable by him with the help of medical or other appropriate expert advice which it is reasonable for him to seek; but a person shall not be fixed under this subsection with knowledge of a fact ascertainable only with the help of expert advice so long as he has taken all reasonable steps to obtain (and, where appropriate, to act on) that advice.
...
Extension or exclusion of ordinary time-limit: disability
28. (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, if on the date when any right of action accrued for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, the person to whom it accrued was under a disability, the action may be brought at any time before the expiration of six years from the date when he ceased to be under a disability or died (whichever first occurred) notwithstanding that the period of limitation has expired.
...
Discretionary exclusion of time-limit for actions in respect of personal injuries or death
33. (1) If it appears to the court that it would be equitable to allow an action to proceed having regard to the degree to which:
(a) the provisions of section 11 or 12 of this Act prejudice the plaintiff or any person whom he represents; and
(b) any decision of the court under this subsection would prejudice the defendant or any person whom he represents; the court may direct that those provisions shall not apply to the action, or shall not apply to any specified cause of action to which the action relates.
...
(3) In acting under this section the court shall have regard
(a) the length of, and the reasons for, the delay on the part of the plaintiff;
(b) the extent to which, having regard to the delay, the evidence adduced or likely to be adduced by the plaintiff or the defendant is or is likely to be less cogent than if the action had been brought within the time allowed by section 11 or (as the case may be) by section 2;
(c) the conduct of the defendant after the cause of action accrued ...
(d) the duration of any disability of the plaintiff arising after the date of the accrual of the cause of action;
(e) the extent to which the plaintiff acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the act or omission of the defendant, to which the injury was attributable, might be capable at that time of giving rise to an action for damages;
(f) the steps, if any, taken by the plaintiff to obtain medical, legal or other expert advice and the nature of any such advice which he may have received ...
38. ...
(2) For the purposes of this Act a person shall be treated as under a disability while he is an infant, or of unsound mind."
36. In Stubbings v. Webb [1993] Appeal Cases, p. 498, the House of Lords held that actions for damages for deliberately inflicted personal injury fell within section 2 of the 1980 Act, in contrast to actions for negligently inflicted injury to which section 11 (1) of the same Act applied (see paragraph 15 above for a more detailed account of this case).
37. In June 1995, the Law Commission, the statutory law reform body for England and Wales, announced that it intended to undertake a comprehensive review of the law of limitation (Sixth Programme of Law Reform, Law Commission Report no. 234, item 3).
38. It is an offence punishable by life imprisonment to have sexual intercourse with a woman or girl without her consent or attempt to do so, or to have sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of thirteen or attempt to do so. Indecent assault on a woman or girl is also an offence, with a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment (see sections 1, 5, 14 and Schedule II, Part I of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1976).
39. Prosecutions for serious offences are not subject to any time bar under English law. The principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales is the Crown Prosecution Service ("the CPS"), headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions ("the DPP"). The CPS will only institute criminal proceedings if there is sufficient evidence and if it is in the public interest to do so (see the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 and the Code for Crown Prosecutors).
Private individuals may also institute criminal proceedings (section 6 of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985). However, the DPP may take over the conduct of these proceedings and then discontinue them if the evidence is insufficient, if the proceedings would be contrary to the public interest or for any other good reason (R. v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte South Coast Shipping Co. Ltd [1993] Queen’s Bench Reports, p. 650F-G).
40. The standard of proof in England and Wales for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, whereas to succeed in a civil claim the material facts must be shown to exist only on the balance of probabilities.
41. A court may make a compensation order in respect of a person convicted of an offence, requiring him to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from that offence (Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, section 35, as amended by section 104 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988). This procedure should only be used for dealing with claims in straightforward cases and courts should refrain from making compensation orders where these would involve the making of a weekly payment over a period of years (R. v. Daly [1974] 1 All England Reports, p. 290).
42. In addition, a person who can show on the balance of probabilities that he or she has suffered personal injury caused by conduct constituting a criminal offence such as rape or assault may claim compensation from an administrative body, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (Criminal Justice Act 1988, sections 110-111). However, the Authority will not award compensation in respect of any injury inflicted before October 1979 by a family member living under the same roof as the alleged victim.
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 14
6
8
NON_VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-78836
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: UKR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: CASE OF SUKHOY v. UKRAINE
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed - Non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: Peer Lorenzen
TEXT: 4. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk region. He is a former employee of the OJSC “ElectronGaz” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Електрон-Газ”). At the material time the State owned 99.96% of the Company's share capital. The Company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”
5. On 6 October 2000 the Zhovti Vody Court (Жовтоводський міський суд Дніпропетровської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 12,514.76 in salary arrears. This judgment became final and the enforcement writ was transferred to the Zhovti Vody Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.
6. On 26 December 2002 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgment of 6 October 2000 was delayed on account of the Company's lack of funds. It also stated that the attachment of the Company's property was impeded by the Law of 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”
7. On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court (Господарський суд Дніпропетровської області) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and on 10 October 2003 ordered its rehabilitation to be completed by 10 October 2004.
8. On 21 October 2004 the applicant received the debt due to him by the judgment of 6 October 2000.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1