Violation of Art. 6-1 (access to court - independent and impartial tribunal);Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - financial reparation in the absence of restitution) - financial award;Pecuniary damage (loss of profits resulting from failure to comply with a final judgment) - claim dismissed;Pecuniary damage - financial award (reimbursement of taxes and duties paid) - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - claim dismissed

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;David Thór Björgvinsson;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Lucius Caflisch

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE and lives in FAC ( GPE ) .

In DATE , under Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on nationalisation , the ORG took possession of a building located at CARDINAL FAC in GPE which belonged to the applicant 's parents , NORP citizens and members of the NORP faith .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action to recover possession of the property with ORG . The action was directed against GPE local council , ORG ( Departamentul de administrare a fondului locativ ) and the ORG company ORG , which managed such properties . He alleged that , under Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , property belonging to certain social categories had been exempt from nationalisation and that his parents had belonged to CARDINAL such category .

In a judgment of DATE the court allowed the action on the ground that the ORG had taken possession of the property without any valid title . It ordered the defendants to restore the building and the adjoining land to the applicant .

Following an appeal by the GPE mayor 's office acting on behalf of the local council , ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court in a judgment of DATE .

NORP The mayor 's office lodged a further appeal with ORG , which in a final judgment of DATE declared the appeal inadmissible for failure to give reasons .

In a decision of DATE the mayor of GPE ordered the return of the building to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant , accompanied by a bailiff , went to the building with a view to taking possession and found that it was occupied by ORG under a lease concluded with the ORG company Locato , which managed the buildings placed at the disposal of diplomatic missions in GPE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against PERSON and ORG seeking the setting - aside of the lease and an order requiring ORG to vacate the building .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the action . It observed that in DATE , by a government decision , ownership of the building had been transferred from the GPE mayor 's office to the company managing the buildings used by diplomatic missions in GPE . That company had been letting the building to GPE since DATE . The latest lease , which had been concluded on DATE and set the rent at MONEY ( ORG ) DATE , was due to expire on DATE . Taking the view that PERSON had proper authority to manage the building , the court held that the disputed lease was valid .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , on an appeal by PERSON , set aside the impugned decision and allowed the applicant 's action . ORG observed that in its final judgment of DATE ORG had held that the ORG had appropriated the building without any valid title . Taking the view that the ORG could not dispose of a property which did not belong to it , the court set aside the lease and ordered the eviction of the tenant organisation . PERSON appealed on points of law .

On DATE the bailiff was authorised by ORG to evict the tenant organisation under the decision of DATE . On DATE he directed PERSON to comply with the decision .

In a letter of DATE Locato informed the bailiff that the building was the property of the ORG and that the tenant organisation had diplomatic immunity . That being so , it considered that enforcing the eviction order would be inappropriate and liable to damage GPE 's image internationally .

On DATE and DATE the bailiff went to the building but was refused entry by a representative of ORG on the ground that ORG was a GPE governmental organisation which had diplomatic immunity and could not therefore be evicted .

On DATE the bailiff wrote to the President of ORG informing him of the difficulties encountered in enforcing the judgment of DATE and the decision of the mayor of GPE , as PERSON and ORG were invoking diplomatic immunity . The letter included the following passage :

“ Given the applicability of certain international law conventions in situations such as this , we would be grateful if you could consider the possibility DATE and inform us accordingly – of taking specific enforcement measures , in view of the fact that the writ of execution is supposed to take effect and that the appeal by PERSON against ORG judgment of DATE is pending before your court and has been set down for hearing on DATE . ”

On DATE the President of ORG replied to the bailiff 's letter and informed him that his concerns had been looked into by an inspecting judge , whose report he forwarded to the bailiff . The report indicated that under LAW of DATE the property of diplomatic missions was inviolable . As the immunity from jurisdiction extended to enforcement procedures , the inspecting judge concluded that the applicant could not regain possession of his building , and asked the bailiff to advise him to apply for compensation corresponding to the value of the building on the ground that it was not possible to have the judgment of DATE enforced .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant , who lives in GPE , sent a fax to the registry of ORG stating that he was dispensing with the services of his lawyer and requesting an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for DATE so that he could instruct a replacement .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused the request for an adjournment , taking the view that the applicant had had sufficient time to appoint a new lawyer . However , it adjourned delivery of the judgment , first until DATE and then until DATE , in order to allow the applicant to submit conclusions in writing .

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , allowed PERSON 's appeal on points of law and dismissed the applicant 's action . It confirmed the validity of the lease , finding that it had been entered into in good faith since , although the company had not in fact been the owner of the building in question at the time of signature of the lease , it had appeared to be .

On DATE the GPE ORG rejected a complaint by the applicant against the bailiff alleging that the latter had failed to take action to enforce the judgment of DATE . The court observed that the bailiff had gone to the building but had been informed that ORG enjoyed immunity from jurisdiction . Accordingly , the court held that the bailiff could not be said to have failed to enforce the judgment in question .

On DATE , on the basis of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the rules governing immovable property wrongfully nationalised by the ORG DATE and DATE ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) , the applicant requested that PERSON return the property to him . His request was rejected by a decision of DATE .

The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG and requested that PERSON be evicted from the building . He argued that the building belonged to him by virtue of the judgment of DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the claim for restitution of the building but rejected the eviction request on the ground that FAC was not a party to the proceedings . PERSON appealed on points of law .

By a governmental decision ( no . CARDINAL ) of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON became ORG ( Regia autonoma PERSON patrimoniului protocolului PERSON – “ the NORP ” ) . The applicant 's property continued to appear in the lists attached to that decision as ORG property managed by the ORG .

By judgment of DATE ORG allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicant 's claim on the ground that Mr PERSON had not adduced evidence either that title to the building had passed to him as his parents ' heir or that he had failed to be compensated contrary to the agreement concluded in DATE between GPE and GPE concerning property formerly owned by NORP citizens and nationalised by ORG .

An appeal on points of law by the applicant is currently pending before ORG and ORG .

In an action to recover possession lodged with ORG on DATE , the applicant requested that the ORG return the building , that the lease concluded with ORG be set aside and the latter evicted , and that the rent received by the ORG under the lease be paid to him .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the action inadmissible on the ground that the applicant could not lodge an ordinary action to recover possession while the action based on LAW no . MONEY was still pending .

The applicant appealed to ORG , which upheld the judgment on DATE . The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG and ORG . The latter , in a judgment of DATE , allowed the appeal and remitted the case to ORG . The proceedings are still pending .

The ORG was reorganised by Government Decision no . CARDINAL of DATE . The applicant 's building is still on the list of ORG - owned properties managed by the ORG .

Although the lease concluded with ORG expired on DATE , that organisation continues to occupy the building . The Government have not provided any details as to the legal basis for the occupancy .

The documents supplied by the applicant show that he has paid all the taxes and duties due on the building . However , in DATE and DATE the ORG also paid taxes and duties into the local budget in respect of the building .

Under ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in force at the material time , the president of the court of appeal performed mainly administrative , organisational and supervisory duties . The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ The president [ of the court of appeal ] and , where appropriate , the presidents of the divisions [ of that court ] shall decide on the composition of the benches ... ”

“ Where the president , the vice - president or the division president is a member of the bench , he or she shall preside . In all other cases the president or division president shall appoint the presiding judge of the bench . ”

“ The Minister of ORG shall be responsible for the proper organisation and operation of the justice system as a public service . The inspecting judges of the courts of appeal shall keep the Minister of Justice informed of the functioning of the courts and of any irregularities liable to compromise the standard of judicial activity and the application of the laws and regulations coming within the jurisdiction of the courts of appeal .

The presidents and vice - presidents of the courts shall monitor the organisation and quality of the service and compliance with the laws and regulations ... The presidents of the courts of appeal may exercise this prerogative through the intermediary of the inspecting judges of the court of appeal .

In no circumstances may the monitoring activities entail interference in the conduct of proceedings in progress or call into question a decision already given ... ”

“ Promotion for judges shall be on the basis of merit , as attested by the appraisals carried out by their superiors . Appraisals shall be conducted DATE and shall reflect the performance of the persons concerned , their conduct in the workplace and in society , their professional qualities and their career prospects . ”

“ Judges shall be prohibited from providing advice , orally or in writing , concerning ongoing cases , even if the case in question is being heard by a court other than the one in which they sit . They may not express opinions in public concerning ongoing cases . ”

“ Judges ' disciplinary liability shall be incurred in the event of irregularities in the performance of their duties or conduct liable to damage the interests of the service or the reputation of the justice system . ”

“ Disciplinary proceedings ... shall be initiated by the Minister of Justice ... ”

“ In order to initiate disciplinary proceedings ... , a preliminary investigation ordered by the Minister of ORG shall be compulsory .

The investigation shall be carried out either by judges of at least the same ranking as the judge under investigation , by general inspectors or by other ORG officials assimilated to judges . ”

“ On receiving the findings of the investigation , the Minister may refer the matter to ORG .

The ORG shall give a decision accompanied by a statement of reasons ... ”

The position of inspecting judge at the court of appeal was abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . However , the possibility for the president or vice - presidents of the court of appeal to appoint judges to carry out inspections was maintained . Nevertheless , these inspections must respect judges ' independence and comply with final court decisions .

Article CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was repealed by ORG no . CARDINAL ) , which stipulates that judges ' performance shall be assessed DATE by a committee under the authority of ORG .

The method for designating the judges to sit on the benches of the courts of appeal was amended by ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which states that the composition of the benches shall be decided by a panel within each court of appeal , made up of the president and CARDINAL members elected by the general assembly of judges .

Under PERSON no . GPE on ORG , disciplinary proceedings are a matter exclusively for a disciplinary committee within ORG , to which any interested party may apply .

The relevant international provisions are as follows :

“ For the purpose of the present Convention , the following expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them :

( i ) The ' premises of the mission ' are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto , irrespective of ownership , used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission . ”

“ CARDINAL.The functions of a diplomatic mission consist , inter alia , in :

( a ) Representing the sending ORG in the receiving ORG ;

( b ) Protecting in the receiving ORG the interests of the sending ORG and of its nationals , within the limits permitted by international law ;

( c ) Negotiating with the Government of the receiving ORG ;

( d ) Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving ORG , and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending ORG ;

( e ) Promoting friendly relations between the sending ORG and the receiving ORG , and developing their economic , cultural and scientific relations .

“ CARDINAL . The LOC of the mission shall be inviolable . The agents of the receiving ORG may not enter them , except with the consent of the head of the mission .

The receiving ORG is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the LOC of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity .

The LOC of the mission , their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search , requisition , attachment or execution . ”

“ A ORG can not claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of ORG if the proceedings relate to :

a. its rights or interests in , or its use or possession of , immovable property ; or

b. its obligations arising out of its rights or interests in , or use or possession of , immovable property and the property is situated in the territory of the State of the forum . ”

“ No measures of execution or preventive measures against the property of a Contracting State may be taken in the territory of another ORG except where and to the extent that the ORG has expressly consented thereto in writing in any particular case . ”

The relevant provisions of this Convention read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . For the purposes of the present Convention :

( b ) “ State ” means :

( i ) the ORG and its various organs of government ;

( iii ) agencies or instrumentalities of the ORG or other entities , to the extent that they are entitled to perform and are actually performing acts in the exercise of sovereign authority of the ORG ;

“ A ORG enjoys immunity , in respect of itself and its property , from the jurisdiction of the courts of another ORG subject to the provisions of the present Convention . ”

“ CARDINAL . A ORG shall give effect to ORG immunity under LAW by refraining from exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding before its courts against another ORG and to that end shall ensure that its courts determine on their own initiative that the immunity of that other ORG under LAW is respected .

A proceeding before a court of a ORG shall be considered to have been instituted against another ORG if that other ORG :

( a ) is named as a party to that proceeding ; or

( b ) is not named as a party to the proceeding but the proceeding in effect seeks to affect the property , rights , interests or activities of that other ORG . ”

“ Unless otherwise agreed between the GPE concerned , a ORG can not invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another ORG which is otherwise competent in a proceeding which relates to the determination of :

( a ) any right or interest of the ORG in , or its possession or use of , or any obligation of the ORG arising out of its interest in , or its possession or use of , immovable property situated in the ORG of the forum ;

( b ) any right or interest of the ORG in movable or immovable property arising by way of succession , gift or bona vacantia ; or

( c ) any right or interest of the ORG in the administration of property , such as trust property , the estate of a bankrupt or the property of a company in the event of its winding up . ”

“ No post - judgment measures of constraint , such as attachment , arrest or execution , against property of a ORG may be taken in connection with a proceeding before a court of another ORG unless and except to the extent that :

( a ) the ORG has expressly consented to the taking of such measures as indicated :

( i ) by international agreement ;

( ii ) by an arbitration agreement or in a written contract ; or

( iii ) by a declaration before the court or by a written communication after a dispute between the parties has arisen ; or

( b ) the ORG has allocated or earmarked property for the satisfaction of the claim which is the object of that proceeding ; or

( c ) it has been established that the property is specifically in use or intended for use by the ORG for other than government non - commercial purposes and is in the territory of the ORG of the forum ... ”

“ ORG representative and his / her staff members will be granted the same treatment as personnel of comparable rank in ORG in GPE , except that they will not have diplomatic status and immunity . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the Court by Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

In DATE the applicant , a former gynaecologist / obstetrician joined the Jehova ’s Witnesses .

In DATE the applicant entered ORG No . CARDINAL in GPE to give birth to her third child . On her admission to the maternity ward at TIME on DATE , she explained to the duty doctor , PERSON , that she was a NORP ’s Witness and conscientiously objected to blood transfusions on religious grounds . She asked the medical staff to use effective alternatives that were available . Dr PERSON accepted the applicant as a patient . The applicant also gave PERSON an advance directive , which had been signed and dated before witnesses , expressly refusing a blood transfusion ( even if doctors believed it necessary to preserve her life or health ) , agreeing to accept alternative methods of treatment ( non - blood volume expanders ) and releasing the medical personnel from all liability for any unfavourable consequences resulting from her decision .

At TIME on DATE the applicant gave birth to a baby girl . Although the delivery was uncomplicated , bleeding gradually ensued in the postnatal stage . An entry in the hospital records at TIME stated :

“ The woman categorically refuses transfusions of blood and blood components ( for religious reasons ) . ”

DATE , instead of adhering to the applicant ’s request for available alternatives to be used , the doctor rendered the applicant unconscious with anaesthetic and began to give her a blood transfusion . According to the hospital records , anaesthetic was administered

“ with the aim of rendering her unconscious , as she refuses a blood transfusion for religious reasons . ”

After the applicant regained consciousness and discovered that she was receiving a blood transfusion , she tried to close the regulator valve and stop the transfusion . The doctor took a syringe and administered a stronger anaesthetic . The hospital records stated :

“ During the transfusion the woman periodically turned off the transfusion system , refusing the transfusion . ”

Over DATE the applicant received CARDINAL litres of blood , in addition to blood substitutes . The foreign blood came from CARDINAL different donors , including fresh whole blood that had not been tested for HIV virus , Hepatitis B , Hepatitis C , and other blood - borne diseases .

An entry in the hospital records for DATE stated :

“ TIME [ The woman ] is conscious , she orients herself properly , but has an inappropriate attitude towards the transfusion of blood components ( which are prohibited by her faith ) . ”

On DATE , DATE after the doctors began the blood transfusion , they obtained consent from the applicant ’s husband . The hospital records stated :

“ The woman belongs to the PERSON sect and categorically refuses blood transfusions . All blood transfusions were conducted under anaesthetic with the husband ’s consent . ”

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the intensive care unit of ORG No . CARDINAL in GPE ( a hospital that accepts severe cases ) for treatment for her condition , which continued to be serious , her symptoms including persistent fever and blood poisoning . The applicant told her new doctors that she wanted them to use alternatives to blood , and they agreed .

Ultrasound tests to the applicant ’s abdomen revealed an unknown fluid that was the source of the problem , and doctors began non - invasive treatment . The applicant ’s serious condition , however , continued for DATE . Suspecting an abscess , the doctors finally decided to operate on DATE . The operation revealed that the cause of the poisoning was QUANTITY of thin blood in the applicant ’s abdomen following the blood transfusions at ORG . CARDINAL .

In DATE the regional insert PERSON to the national PERSON i PERSON newspaper printed a story containing detailed information on the applicant ’s treatment in ORG . CARDINAL , including her name ( given as “ PERSON ) , age , religion , profession , number of years’ work experience , and the name of the hospital and the city . The applicant , who was easily identifiable from the publication , had not given her prior consent to the article or published any information herself . The newspaper story said that the information had come from hospital doctors , but they denied this .

On DATE the applicant filed a civil action in ORG requesting a judicial declaration that the fact that she had been forced to have blood transfusions at the ORG hospital had violated her rights as a patient to withhold her consent and to medical privacy , as well as her constitutional rights to respect for her private life and freedom of conscience .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant had made a prior written request signed before CARDINAL witnesses for alternatives to blood to be used . The court dismissed her claim , stating that no mechanism existed in NORP law to enable the right to refuse medical treatment to be exercised and that the choice of treatment was the ORG . It also dismissed the claims against the doctors for breach of medical privacy , holding that that issue had to be resolved by a separate libel action against the newspaper .

On DATE ORG of ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal and ordered a retrial .

On DATE , after CARDINAL postponements due to the ORG repeated failure to appear in court , ORG began a new hearing .

On DATE , after further adjournments , the court appointed a team of independent medical experts to compile a report . The team included CARDINAL pre - eminent NORP doctors , specialising in obstetrics , intensive care , anaesthetics and medical ethics . The experts , whose practical experience ranged from CARDINAL to DATE , reviewed the entire court file , including all the hospital records and the testimony of all the doctors concerned .

On DATE the experts concluded that the blood transfusions had been unnecessary and should have been avoided by adopting standard medical practice that would have been available to the treating doctors in DATE in ORG . The applicant had had toxaemia , and bleeding had been anticipated . It had developed into disseminated intravascular coagulation . The necessary preventive measures had not been carried out . Other measures had been taken late or had been incorrect and had only served to exacerbate the applicant ’s condition . The experts’ report highlighted critical errors in the applicant ’s treatment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claims in spite of ORG ruling on appeal that LAW of LAW “ provides for a citizen ’s right to refuse medical treatment , and not medical assistance . ” Instead , ORG held that under NORP law , it was for the doctor , not the patient , to decide the treatment . The court also found that the LOC intervention when the applicant had attempted to stop the transfusion by closing the valve was lawful , as applicable laws did not permit euthanasia . The court disregarded the conclusions of the team of experts because its findings were largely based on modern medical theory and practice in DATE while the incident involving the applicant had taken place in DATE .

On DATE ORG denied the applicant ’s appeal for reasons similar to those of the trial court .

LAW provides :

“ Everyone has the right to freedom and personal inviolability . ”

“ Everyone has the right to respect for his private life and family life , his home and correspondence . ”

LAW , No . GPE , of CARDINAL DATE recognises patient ’s rights to “ integrity ” or personal autonomy and self - determination :

“ Patients have the following rights when requesting or receiving medical assistance : ...

( CARDINAL ) fully to make an informed decision on whether to consent to medical treatment in accordance with LAW of this PERSON ;

( CARDINAL) to refuse medical treatment in accordance with LAW of this LAW ... ”

“ The citizen ’s informed voluntary consent is a prerequisite for medical treatment ... ”

“ A citizen or his legal representative has the right to refuse medical treatment or to demand that it cease , as except in those instances set out on LAW of this PERSON . ”

“ Medical aid ( medical examinations , hospitalisation , observation and isolation ) shall be permitted without the consent of the patient or his legal representatives if he suffers from a contagious disease or a serious psychiatric disorder or has acted in a dangerous manner on the grounds and under the procedure order prescribed by the legislation of GPE .

A decision on whether to conduct a medical examination on a person or to admit him for observation without his or his legal representative ’s consent shall be taken by a doctor ( or a council of doctors ) , while a decision on whether to hospitalise a person without his or his legal representative ’s consent shall be taken by a court of law .

The provision of medical assistance without the consent of the patient or his legal representatives , associated with anti - epidemic measures , shall be regulated by healthcare legislation .

Persons suffering from serious psychiatric disorders may be examined and admitted to hospital without their consent under the procedure prescribed by the PERSON of ORG Help and the Guarantees of the Rights of People at the Time it is given .

Compulsory medical measures may be imposed on persons who have acted in a dangerous manner on the grounds and under the procedure established by the legislation of GPE .

Such persons shall remain in a medical institution until there cease to be any grounds for their hospitalisation without their consent or until a court order . ”


Preliminary objection rejected (out of time);Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

On DATE Mr PERSON was taken into police custody and charged with incitement to murder . He was subsequently detained on remand .

On the conclusion of the investigations , in which several suspects were involved , he was summoned , on DATE , to appear for trial before ORG ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE . On DATE he was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment less the time already spent in police custody and in detention on remand .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Gerechtshof ) of GPE . By judgment of CARDINAL DATE it upheld ORG decision .

The applicant then , within the time - limit of DATE prescribed by GPE law ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( d ) below ) , introduced an appeal on points of law to ORG ( PERSON ) by means of a statement made at the registry of ORG . The documents of the case were sent by the registry of that court to the registry of ORG and received there on DATE . PERSON in his advisory opinion proposed its dismissal . However , by judgment of DATE , ORG quashed ORG judgment on technical grounds and referred the case to ORG . The registry of ORG sent the documents to the registry of ORG on DATE ; they were received on DATE .

On DATE the Attorney - General at ORG issued a summons against the applicant . ORG heard the case on DATE .

During the hearing the applicant requested a suspension of his detention on remand and also an adjournment of the hearing in order to have examined CARDINAL witnesses who had been summoned at the request of the defence but who had failed to appear . ORG refused the first request . However , with the agreement of counsel for the defence it adjourned the hearing until DATE ; the reason given for a delay of that length ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) below ) was that the court ’s calendar for the intervening period did not permit an earlier date .

ORG resumed its hearing on DATE , at which point the witnesses who had failed to appear on DATE were examined . It refused a new request by the applicant for suspension of his detention on remand .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment less the time already spent in police custody and detention on remand .

Within the time - limit of DATE prescribed by GPE law , Mr PERSON introduced a second appeal on points of law to ORG by means of a statement made at the registry of ORG .

Pending the hearing of that appeal the applicant made a number of requests to ORG concerning his detention on remand . It suspended the measure for DATE in DATE and again for DATE in DATE . However , on DATE it rejected a request , based inter alia on Articles CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL , article DATE ) of the LAW , for the detention to be terminated or else suspended .

In DATE ORG again granted CARDINAL GPE leave , but refused to terminate or otherwise suspend the detention .

The documents of the case were sent by the registry of ORG to the registry of ORG , which received them on DATE . On a date in DATE , the President of ORG set the hearing for DATE . The applicant , through his counsel , subsequently filed his grounds of appeal .

Counsel for the defence proposed CARDINAL grounds of appeal . The first of these , the CARDINAL which raised points with which this ORG is concerned , was a complaint about violation of , inter alia , Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL in conjunction with Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( c ) and LAW CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL - CARDINAL-c , article DATE ) of the LAW . The explanatory note emphasised that the applicant had been in police custody and detention on remand since DATE and that , as a consequence , both he and his family had developed psychiatric problems . Detention on remand had only been suspended twice on this ground , in each case for DATE , the last such occasion having been in DATE . Although the case was not complex , it had already taken DATE , so that the " reasonable time " laid down by LAW had been exceeded . A separate assessment of the various phases of the proceedings led to the same conclusion : in particular , the lapses of time involved in the first appeal on points of law , that involved in the procedure before ORG and the treatment of the second appeal on points of law were such that the said provisions had not been complied with .

In accordance with the advisory opinion filed on CARDINAL DATE by ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal by judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It held , inter alia , that it had to be assumed that neither the applicant nor his counsel had raised the issue of the length of the proceedings at ORG hearings on DATE and DATE ; that the mere circumstance that the preparation of the case and its examination by ORG and ORG of GPE and ORG had taken DATE ( DATE ) did not in itself oblige ORG to address explicitly the question whether or not the case had been decided within a reasonable time ; and that in addition , taking into account the time that had elapsed between ORG judgment of DATE and ORG DATE hearing , no violation of Articles CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL , article DATE ) of the LAW had taken place . The personal circumstances of the applicant did not warrant any other conclusion .

On DATE Mr PERSON submitted a request for a pardon . This was refused on CARDINAL DATE by the Deputy Minister of Justice ( ORG ) .

An application for review was lodged by the applicant on DATE but declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE .

The applicant was released from prison on DATE .

The following is a translation from the original NORP of the relevant provisions of LAW ( Wetboek van Strafvordering ) .

" CARDINAL . If the accused is in detention on remand , the following paragraphs of this article shall apply .

If ORG suspends the examination at the hearing for a fixed period , it shall as a rule set the period of the suspension at no longer than DATE . For compelling reasons , which are to be mentioned in the official record , it can decide on a longer period , but in no case DATE .

For the purposes of this provision , DATE is taken to mean DATE ( Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ) . Article PERSON is equally applicable to proceedings before ORG ( Article CARDINAL ) .

" CARDINAL . The judgment shall be signed within TIME after its pronouncement by the judges who heard the case and by the registrar who was present at the deliberations .

If CARDINAL or more of them are unable to do so , this shall be mentioned at the end of the judgment .

As soon as the judgment is signed , and in any case after the end of the period laid down in the first paragraph , the accused or his counsel can take cognisance of it and of the official record of the hearing . "

This article too is equally applicable to proceedings before ORG ( Article CARDINAL ) .

" CARDINAL . An objection [ against a default judgment ] , an appeal or an appeal on points of law shall be lodged by means of a statement to be made by the person exercising that legal remedy at the registry of the court by which or at which the decision was given .

" CARDINAL . An appeal must be filed :

a. if the summons to appear at the hearing has been notified to the accused in person or the accused has appeared at the hearing , within DATE after the pronouncement of the final judgment ;

b. in other cases , within DATE after a circumstance has occurred from which it follows that the accused is aware of the judgment .

" CARDINAL . After an appeal is filed , the registrar of the ORG shall send the documents of the case to the registrar of ORG as soon as possible .

" CARDINAL . An appeal on points of law must be filed :

" CARDINAL . The prosecution ( Openbaar ministerie ) is obliged , on pain of inadmissibility of the prosecution , to file , together with its appeal or within DATE thereafter , at the registry of its court , a written statement of its grounds of appeal on points of law .

The accused by whom or in whose name an appeal on points of law has been filed is entitled to file such a written statement with ORG until DATE of the hearing at the latest .

The registrar of the court which delivered the judgment shall send the documents of the case to the registrar of ORG within DATE after the time - limit for the prosecution to file its written statement has expired or after it has filed a written statement earlier .

In practice it was generally assumed that the time - limit according to paragraph CARDINAL of this article was DATE after the date of pronouncement of ORG judgment , irrespective of whether or not the prosecution had lodged an appeal on points of law .

Before the LAW of DATE ( Staatsblad ( Official Gazette ) CARDINAL ) , which altered ( inter alia ) Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL , this provision , like LAW , provided only that the documents were to be sent in " as soon as possible " . The time - limit of DATE was introduced " with a view to expediting the transmission of the file " .

By the LAW of DATE ( Staatsblad CARDINAL ) , which came into force on DATE , the time - limit of DATE incorporated in the third paragraph of Article CARDINAL in DATE was removed ; that paragraph now once more provides that the documents are to be sent in " as soon as possible " . The reasons given therefor were firstly that , according to the case - law of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , non - compliance with Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL did not entail nullity and the rights of the accused in case of unreasonable delay in the proceedings before ORG were in any case protected by Articles CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW . Secondly , it was pointed out that in practice this time - limit was only rarely met and that it appeared inappropriate to maintain a provision which " in relation to the - speedy - pursuit of the proceedings before ORG creates expectations which in practice can hardly if at all be fulfilled " .

" CARDINAL . After the documents have been at the registry for DATE , they shall be taken by the Procurator - General against receipt and forwarded to ORG along with his proposal for fixing a hearing date .

The president shall fix the date for the hearing and shall appoint a rapporteur to report at the hearing . "

After referral by ORG , the documents of the case must be sent by its registry to the registry of the court which is to retry the case . However , due to the fact that LAW contains no provisions at all relating to proceedings after referral , a provision comparable to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL and applicable in these cases does not exist .

Non - compliance with Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL or Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW does not , according to the case - law of ORG , entail nullity : that sanction is not expressly provided for ; neither are these provisions so essential that non - compliance should ipso facto lead to nullity . However , non - compliance is relevant in connection with the question whether the requirement of trial " within a reasonable time " within the meaning of Article CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW has been complied with ( see , for instance , the judgments of ORG of DATE , GPE ( PERSON ) DATE , CARDINAL , and DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) .

The case - law of ORG relating to the requirement of " trial within a reasonable time " within the meaning of Article CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW in general , and more especially in relation to the question of the consequences of non - compliance with Articles CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW , may be summarised as follows .

( a ) If the court decides to impose a more lenient sentence , it must take into account the extent of the violation and also indicate the reduction which it has thought fit to apply ( see , for instance , ORG judgments of CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) .

( b ) In order to determine whether or not a " reasonable time " has been exceeded , the court must consider both the various phases of criminal proceedings and their overall time - span and take into account all appropriate circumstances in reaching its decision , such as the complexity of the case , the conduct of the accused and the way in which the case has been handled by the competent authorities ( see , for instance , the judgment of ORG of DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) .

( c ) As the decision as to whether or not a reasonable time has been exceeded is thus partly dependent on the assessment of factual circumstances , ORG , which essentially has competence only as regards points of law , can examine the validity of the decision of the judge of fact only to a limited degree ; thus a judgment can only be quashed if it reveals an incorrect view of the concept of trial within a reasonable time or of the standards set out in the preceding paragraph , or if the grounds given for its decision are insufficient ( see , for instance , the judgments of ORG of DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) .

Although ORG has held that delaying criminal proceedings for DATE does not in itself warrant the conclusion that a " reasonable time " has been exceeded ( see its judgment of DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) , it is commonly assumed that in its above - mentioned limited assessment it applies , as a general guideline , a rule presumed to have been derived from the report of ORG in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( Marijnissen ) ( Decisions and Reports CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) endorsed by ORG in its resolution of DATE ( DH ( CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) . This rule may be summarised as follows : in principle , a " reasonable time " has been exceeded if the proceedings in CARDINAL of their phases have not been pursued for DATE due to circumstances for which the accused is not responsible ; if such an eventuality occurs and is pleaded by the defence , then a rejection of that plea must be particularly well reasoned . The character of this rule as a general guideline implies , on the one hand , that under certain circumstances stagnation for a shorter period may be a reason for applying such strict requirements to the grounds given for rejecting the defence ’s plea that a reasonable time has been exceeded and , on the other hand , apparently , that exceeding the time - limit of DATE may sometimes , perhaps also depending on the further circumstances of the particular case , be allowed to pass .

( d ) The courts must also address ex officio the question whether a reasonable time has been exceeded . However , it must only appear from the judgment that this has been done if there are special circumstances .

In considering whether or not such special circumstances are present , ORG uses the general guideline , mutatis mutandis , indicated in sub - paragraph ( c ) . This means that , as a rule , it only holds the lower courts bound to address ex officio the question whether or not a reasonable time has been exceeded if it appears from the documents that the proceedings have been held up for DATE due to reasons for which the defence can not be held accountable . However , if there are special circumstances , the courts are obliged to address the question ex officio even if the period of inactivity is shorter ( see , for instance , ORG judgments of DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) .

( e ) The ORG applies these rules itself in the procedure of appeal on points of law and thus addresses , ex officio if need be , the question whether it must be assumed that the duration of proceedings in this phase has led to excessive length of the proceedings . In this connection , it appears from its abundant case - law that the time elapsed between the filing of the appeal on points of law and the sending in of the documents to the registry of ORG has some significance : if this causes such a delay that the case comes up before ORG for the first time DATE after the appeal on points of law was filed , then as a rule the judgment will be quashed and the case will be referred for retrial , at which point the judge of fact will have the options indicated in sub - paragraph ( a ) above of declaring the prosecution inadmissible or of reducing the sentence . However , ORG may itself reach the opinion that no other decision is possible than to declare the prosecution inadmissible , which it may then do of its own motion ( see , for instance , its judgments of CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) . On the other hand , if the period of inactivity is shorter , ORG will merely state that the delay is longer than is desirable but that judgment of the case can not be held not to have taken place within a reasonable time ; it will then determine , applying the rule set forth in the preceding sub - paragraph , whether or not special circumstances warrant any different decision ( see , for instance , its judgments of CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ; DATE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) .


Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of PERSON , the GPE region , GPE .

On DATE the applicant sold his house for UAH CARDINAL to ORG ( hereafter “ the GPE ” ) , responsible for the logistical support of the judiciary . ORG was represented in the transaction by PERSON , the President of ORG . The contract was certified by a notary and specified that the purchase price had to be paid in CARDINAL instalments : UAH CARDINAL and CARDINAL to be paid by CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively . The contract also contained a clause stating the following :

“ In case if the exchange rate of the ORG depreciates the overall sum to be paid can not be less than the ORG equivalent of ORG . ”

NORP In DATE the applicant was paid UAH CARDINAL . In DATE the ORG substantially weakened against GPE dollar . In DATE and DATE the applicant received UAH CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively .

The applicant instituted proceedings against the ORG , claiming that it had failed to fulfil its obligations under the contract , as the sum paid did not take into account the substantial depreciation of the exchange rate of the ORG . Thus , according to the applicant , he had lost some USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

On DATE the Kirovsky District Court of Kirovograd ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) rejected this claim as unsubstantiated . On DATE the ORG of ORG , following the protest ( extraordinary appeal ) of the Deputy President of this court , quashed the judgment and remitted the case .

On DATE , in the course of a new hearing , the ORG lodged a counterclaim seeking the annulment of the contract on the ground that PERSON had exceeded his powers in agreeing to the dollar value clause .

On DATE the Kirovsky ORG of Kirovograd granted the applicant ’s claim and rejected that of ORG . The court established that the clause in issue aimed at ensuring the stability of the contract and protecting the applicant against inflation . The court further found that the applicant had suffered increased financial losses due to the erosion of the ORG ’s purchasing power during the lengthy delay in execution of the contract . It found that the amount eventually paid to him on DATE final transaction had only been ORG . The court awarded the applicant ORG in compensation for the devaluation of the Hryvna , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in statutory interest for the delay and ORG CARDINAL in court costs .

The ORG appealed against this judgment and , on DATE , ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) quashed it and rejected the applicant ’s claim . The court found in favour of the ORG on both of their objections . It noted that PERSON had acted ultra vires by conceding the inclusion of the disputed provision in the contract without the prior consent from the ORG . ORG further stated that , according to LAW ) , the PERSON was the only currency which could be used for internal transactions . The court did not find convincing ORG argument that the impugned clause protected the applicant from inflation , since LAW DATE provided for compensation for losses incurred due to inflation if the execution of a contract was delayed .

ORG acknowledged that the price for the apartment was paid with considerable delay and that the applicant , having made the relevant claim before the court , had the right to be awarded statutory interest at the rate of PERCENT per annum . Taking into account that the applicant had already received CARDINAL PERSON ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG found it appropriate to award him further ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation .

Article CARDINAL of the Decree provided that the currency of GPE ( i.e. the Hryvna ) was the only lawful means of payment in GPE .

According to LAW , a contract concluded contrary to the law should be declared invalid . If the contract is invalidated the parties should return to each other all that was received in execution of the contract .

Article CARDINAL of the Code provided that a debtor who had delayed the execution of a financial undertaking was obliged , on the request of the creditor , to pay the debt taking into account the established index of inflation for the period of delay , as well as statutory interest at PERCENT per annum .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was apprehended by police officers PERSON and PERSON On DATE he was brought to the medical sobering - up facility by these officers . In the course of the applicant ’s apprehension the police officers inflicted bodily injuries on him , resulting in a short - term health disorder .

On DATE the applicant was charged with assaulting and attempting to bribe them .

On DATE the GPE ORG of PERSON acquitted the applicant .

The applicant complained to ORG and ORG seeking to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had unlawfully apprehended and harmed him .

On DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Zaporizzhia ORG in the GPE ORG of Zaporizzhia , seeking compensation for the moral damage caused by the actions of PERSON and L.G.T.

NORP On DATE ORG of PERSON instituted criminal proceedings against the officers .

On DATE the GPE ORG of Zaporizzhia sentenced B.Y.Y. and PERSON to a DATE suspended prison sentence following their conviction for abuse of power and inflicting bodily harm on the applicant . It also ordered the Zaporizzhia ORG to pay the applicant ORG in compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE the GPE ORG of PERSON initiated the execution proceedings for the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the writ of execution was lodged with the GPE ORG in Zaporizzhia .

On CARDINAL DATE the respondent in the case was changed from ORG of PERSON to ORG of PERSON , because the latter was responsible for managing the medical sobering - up facilities .

On DATE the writ of execution was transferred to the ORG for further enforcement .

In DATE ORG confirmed the lack of funds of ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a motion to attach the property of the NORP ORG .

On DATE the Ordzhonikidze ORG of ORG informed the applicant that the attachment of the property of a ORG institution was prohibited by law .

On DATE the Ordzhonikidze ORG informed the applicant of the DATE ORG lack of funds . It also stated that the latter owned no property and therefore attachment was not possible .

During DATE , the applicant repeatedly lodged a number of motions with ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG of GPE and ORG , seeking to institute criminal proceedings against various officials of the DATE ORG , the execution service officials , Judge PERSON of the GPE ORG , and a private person , ORG , who had allegedly assaulted the applicant .

On DATE the ORG terminated the proceedings in the applicant ’s case due to the lack of funds of the Zaporizzhia ORG . The Government mentioned that the applicant retained a right to reintroduce the writ of execution with ORG for DATE .

On DATE the Deputy President of ORG of GPE refused to initiate supervisory review proceedings in the applicant ’s case . It also remitted the applicant ’s claims concerning the non - execution of the judicial decision to ORG .

On DATE the ORG issued resolution no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerning the institution of the enforcement proceedings for the judgment of DATE . It also proposed to the debtor that it enforce the judgment given in the applicant ’s favour voluntarily . On DATE the resolution instituting the criminal proceedings was sent to the Zaporizzhia ORG and to the applicant .

On DATE the bailiff requested ORG to transfer the funds awarded to the applicant by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE to his account .

On DATE the applicant requested that the funds be transferred to his account .

On DATE the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was enforced and the applicant received ORG .

On DATE the ORG terminated the execution proceedings in the case in view of the fact that the judgment of DATE had been enforced in full .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicants , who are siblings , were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant ( who is a NORP and NORP citizen ) lives in GPE ; the second , third and fourth applicants all reside in GPE . The second applicant is a NORP citizen , while the third and fourth applicants are NORP citizens .

On DATE , as the NORP troops were advancing , the applicants ' father left the village of ORG in LOC , where he owned the following immovable properties :

( a ) plot of land with trees in GPE ( plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan CARDINAL , registration no . DATE , area : hectares ( h. ) CARDINAL , decares ( d. ) QUANTITY ( m² ) CARDINAL ) ;

( b ) plot of land with trees in GPE ( plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan CARDINAL , registration no . DATE , area : h. CARDINAL , d. CARDINAL , m² CARDINAL ) ;

( c ) plot of land with trees in GPE ( plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan CARDINAL , registration no . DATE , area : h. CARDINAL , d. CARDINAL , m² CARDINAL ) ;

( d ) plot of land with trees in ORG ( plot nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , sheet / plan CARDINAL , registration no . DATE , area : d. CARDINAL , m² CARDINAL ) ;

( e ) plot of land with trees in Spati ( plot no . ORG , sheet / plan CARDINAL , registration no . DATE , area : d. CARDINAL , m² CARDINAL ) ;

( f ) plot of land with trees in ORG ( plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan CARDINAL , registration no . DATE , area : m² CARDINAL ) ;

( g ) plot of land with trees in ORG ( plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan CARDINAL , registration no . DATE , area : d. CARDINAL , m² CARDINAL ) ;

( h ) plot of land in PERSON ( plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan CARDINAL , registration no . DATE ; area : d. CARDINAL , m² CARDINAL ) .

NORP In support to their claim that their father was the owner of the above - mentioned plots of land , the applicants submitted copies of the title deeds and of the relevant certificates of ownership .

On DATE the applicants ' father tried to visit his property but was arrested by NORP soldiers . He was released on DATE , since he was a NORP citizen .

On DATE the applicants ' father died . According to his will , dated DATE , the plot described under paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) above was to be inherited by the first applicant and the other plots were to be inherited by the CARDINAL applicants in equal shares . On DATE , Mr GPE was appointed as executor of the will of the applicants ' father . The applicants registered their titles with ORG on DATE . The first applicant tried , via the NORP consular authorities , to visit the properties at issue , but did not obtain permission .

NORP In a letter of DATE , the applicants informed the ORG that GPE was planning to construct a highway at the edge of their properties and that an area of m² CARDINAL had been taken for this purpose . The applicants had not been consulted on the matter and no compensation had been offered to them .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of P1-1;No violation of Art. 14+P1-1

ORG Mr PERSON , a lawyer , and PERSON , a university teacher , live in GPE .

ORG In DATE they bought CARDINAL adjacent flats with the aim of making their home there . The former owner of the flats had let them to a PERSON and a PERSON , who paid a rent subject to public - authority control .

ORG In a writ served on CARDINAL DATE the applicants gave the tenants of the flats notice to quit when the leases expired , on DATE , and summoned them to appear before the GPE magistrate ( pretore ) .

ORG On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the magistrate formally confirmed the notices to quit , and fixed the date of eviction at DATE . The orders were made enforceable on CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

ORG Pursuant to Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ( " Law no . CARDINAL " ) , the magistrate suspended enforcement of the evictions until DATE .

ORG On DATE , Mr PERSON and PERSON began proceedings to enforce the orders for possession , as the tenants had still not complied with them . However , on each of QUANTITY occasions when the bailiff responsible for enforcement went to the flats - DATE , DATE and DATE and PERSON refused to leave . They were elderly ladies of modest means and had asked ORG to allocate them low - rent flats .

Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , suspended the enforcement of evictions until DATE . From that date until DATE , only the ORG ( prefetto ) was empowered , in certain cases , to grant police assistance to enforce evictions .

ORG On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the bailiff made unsuccessful attempts to enforce the orders for possession .

ORG From DATE enforcement of evictions was again suspended , initially until DATE , by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , which became LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , and then until DATE , by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE .

ORG In DATE PERSON died and the applicants regained possession of CARDINAL of the flats . PERSON left the other in DATE . In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , Mr PERSON and PERSON had been obliged to buy another flat .

ORG On the basis of the ORG 's report , NORP legislation on residential property leases may be summarised as follows .

Since DATE the public authorities in GPE have frequently intervened in residential tenancy legislation with the aim of controlling rents . This has been achieved by rent freezes ( occasionally relaxed when the Government decreed statutory increases ) , by the statutory extension of all current leases and by the postponement , suspension or staggering of evictions .

The last statutory extension of all current leases , with the exception of certain cases specifically prescribed by the PERSON , was introduced by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE and remained in force until DATE , CARDINAL DATE or DATE , depending on the dates on which the leases were signed .

It should , however , be noted that , as regards buildings used for purposes other than housing , the statutory extension of current leases prescribed by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE was declared unconstitutional in a decision ( no . CARDINAL ) handed down by ORG on DATE . In its decision the court held that the statutory restrictions imposed on property rights under LAW , with a view to ensuring social justice , made it possible to regard controls imposing restrictions as legitimate , provided that such controls were of an exceptional and temporary nature , but that perpetuating such restrictions was incompatible with the protection of property rights embodied in LAW .

In its decision ORG also pointed out that the statutory DATE extension of leases prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL should not be considered in isolation but within the context of tenancy provisions as a whole . The court drew particular attention to the fact that this extension succeeded other statutory extensions and could mark the beginning of new restrictions on freedom of contract in this field . Moreover , the statutory extension of leases had the effect of prolonging contracts in which the rent , notwithstanding the increases allowed in accordance with rises in the cost of living , were not even approximately in line with current socio - economic conditions . Further , the PERSON concerned did not give the lessor the possibility of regaining possession of the property except in cases of absolute necessity .

ORG also held that PERSON no . CARDINAL , inasmuch as it provided for a blanket extension of current leases without taking into consideration the particular economic circumstances of lessors and lessees - as would have been necessary to ensure social justice - , infringed the principle of the equality of citizens before the law embodied in LAW .

Numerous provisions have established rules for the postponement , suspension or staggering of the enforcement of judicial decisions ordering tenants to vacate the LOC they occupy ( ordinanze di sfratto ) .

A first suspension was introduced by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE . The provisions set forth therein were incorporated in Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . It covered the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . This legislation also provided for the staggered resumption of forcible evictions on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE or DATE , depending on the date on which the judgment recording the end of the lease had become enforceable .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL stipulated that such suspensions were not applicable if repossession of the LOC had been ordered because arrears of rent were owed . Similarly , no suspension could be ordered in the following cases :

( a ) where , after conclusion of the contract , the lessor required the property for his own use or for that of his spouse or his children or grandchildren , for residential , commercial or professional purposes , or where a lessor who intended to use the premises for one of the above - mentioned purposes ( a ) offered the tenant similar accommodation at a rent which he could afford and which was not PERCENT higher than the previous rent and ( b ) undertook to pay the costs of the tenant 's removal ( DATE subsection , paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ( " Law no . CARDINAL " ) ) ; and

( b ) where , inter alia , a lessor urgently needed to regain possession of his flat as accommodation for himself , his children or his ascendants ( LAW , first paragraph , sub - paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ( " Law no . CARDINAL " ) ) .

A second suspension was introduced by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , which became LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE .

It covered the period from DATE and in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL provided for the same exceptions as the provisions in the preceding legislation .

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE also established that the ORG was competent to determine the criteria for authorising police assistance in evicting recalcitrant tenants , after consulting a committee including representatives of both tenants and landlords .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL bis ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE also provided for the automatic suspension until DATE of forcible evictions of tenants entitled to subsidised housing .

A third suspension was introduced by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . It first covered the period from CARDINAL DATE to DATE and was subsequently extended from the latter date to DATE .

A fourth suspension was introduced by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , and covered the period up to DATE . In regions suffering from natural disasters the suspension remained in force until DATE .

With the exception of urgent cases , this PERSON also provided that police assistance in enforcing evictions would only be authorised in gradual stages over a period of DATE from DATE and set up a prefectoral committee responsible for deciding which cases required police intervention most urgently .

All the aforementioned laws and decrees also contained provisions relating to the financing of subsidised housing and to housing benefits .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of ORG in LOC . He is a former military officer .

In DATE the applicant sued his military unit for wage arrears for his military service in DATE when he had taken part in a military operation in NORP .

On DATE ORG of FAC upheld the action and awarded the applicant MONEY ( RUR ) . The judgment was not appealed against and became final .

On DATE the applicant received a writ of execution and submitted it to ORG of ORG . On DATE , after ORG of ORG had refused to execute the judgement , the applicant submitted the writ to ORG of GPE .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from the army .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG of ORG , by way of a supervisory review , quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination to ORG of FAC .

On DATE ORG of ORG decided not to examine the action as the applicant had defaulted at CARDINAL hearings .

On DATE the Military Section of ORG of GPE , acting on a supervisory review , found that the applicant had not been duly summonsed to the hearings before ORG of FAC , quashed the judgment of DATE and the decision of DATE and ordered a re - examination of the case by the Presidium of ORG of ORG .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG of ORG , by way of supervisory - review proceedings , re - examined the case , awarded the applicant ORG and dismissed the remainder of his claims .

NORP In DATE the applicant asked ORG of GPE to initiate a supervisory review in respect of the judgment of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the request was dismissed .

NORP In DATE the applicant unsuccessfully requested the President of ORG of GPE to quash the judgment of DATE by way of a supervisory review . On DATE the Vice President of ORG of the Russian Federation refused to institute supervisory - review proceedings in respect of the judgment of DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Alvina Gyulumyan;Anatoly Kovler;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , in GPE .

The applicant 's husband was a staff member of ORG of ORG , a ORG - owned institution . In DATE he was placed on a waiting list to receive housing . In DATE he was on the top of the list . In order to obtain a larger flat from the ORG , it was agreed that the applicant would transfer title to her own flat to ORG . On DATE the applicant and the ORG signed an exchange agreement . The ORG subsequently discovered that the applicant had sold her old flat in DATE .

On an unspecified date , having become aware of the above transactions , the ORG town prosecutor , acting on behalf of ORG and the person who had been allocated the applicant 's flat ( a Mr M ) , brought proceedings against the applicant and her husband to have the exchange agreement invalidated and to evict the applicant 's family from the flat granted to her husband . The applicant 's husband brought a counter - claim seeking the acknowledgement of his right to the new flat received from ORG .

On DATE the ORG of the Krasnodar Region granted the public prosecutor 's claim . On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment and ordered a re - examination of the case by the first - instance court .

The first instance heard the prosecutor , the applicant , her husband and their counsel . ORG and PERSON representatives were also present and made submissions to the court . On DATE ORG granted the public prosecutor 's claim . On DATE ORG dismissed the counter - claim in a separate judgment . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgments of CARDINAL and DATE . The prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing . There is no written proof that the applicant received any summons for the appeal hearing scheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to initiate supervisory proceedings in respect of the above judgments . It rejected , inter alia , the applicant 's complaint about non - notification of the appeal hearing , noting that the parties had been apprised of it .

In the meantime , on DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement in relation to the same facts . On DATE the case was discontinued for lack of a corpus delicti . On DATE the above decision was quashed and the preliminary investigation was resumed . Its outcome remains unclear .

The RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure ( ORG ) in force at the material time read as follows :

“ A prosecutor may bring to a court a claim for the protection of rights and lawfully protected interests of other persons or enter the proceedings at any stage , if it is required for the protection of ORG or public interests or rights and lawfully protected interests of citizens ...

The prosecutor who participates in the proceedings may study the case materials , bring challenges , produce evidence , take part in the examination of evidence , lodge applications , state his opinion on issues arising in the course of the proceedings and on the merits of the case as a whole , as well as perform other procedural actions provided for by law ... ”

The Prosecutor 's Offices Act ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL-I of CARDINAL DATE ) , as in force at the material time provided :

“ ... CARDINAL . In accordance with the procedural legislation of GPE , prosecutors shall participate in the hearing of cases by courts of law and commercial courts ( hereinafter referred to as the “ courts ” ) and shall challenge any court decisions , sentences and rulings which are contrary to the law ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The prosecutor shall take part in court hearings in the cases provided for by the procedural legislation of GPE and other federal laws ...

The prosecutor , in accordance with the procedural legislation of GPE , shall be entitled to make an application to the court or to enter the case at any stage of the proceedings , if the protection of civil rights and lawful interests of society or the state so requires ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the RSFSR CCP provided that a summons was to be served on the parties and their representatives in such a way that they would have enough time to appear at the hearing and prepare their case . Where necessary , the parties could be summoned by a phone call or a telegram . Pursuant to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL , court summonses were to be sent by mail or by courier and served on the person who was a party to the case .

According to Instruction no . CARDINAL issued by ORG of ORG of GPE on DATE , in force at the material time , there was no requirement for registering acknowledgment - of - receipt cards for summons ; the cards were to be filed into the relevant case files ( point CARDINAL ) . Under Instruction no . CARDINAL issued on DATE , the storage period for case files in civil cases examined by a first - instance court on the merits varied from DATE depending on the nature of the case ; certain case files had to be stored for an indefinite period of time ; the storage period for case files in civil cases examined by a court of appeal amounted to DATE ; registers of incoming correspondence were to be kept for DATE ; copies of summons issued by regional courts were to be kept for DATE .

The relevant part of ORG Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) On ORG in ORG by LAW reads as follows :

“ it is essential :

a. that any role for prosecutors in the general protection of human rights does not give rise to any conflict of interest or act as a deterrent to individuals seeking state protection of their rights ;

b. that an effective separation of state power between branches of government is respected in the allocation of additional functions to prosecutors , with complete independence of the public prosecution from intervention on the level of individual cases by any branch of government ; and

c. that the powers and responsibilities of prosecutors are limited to the prosecution of criminal offences and a general role in defending public interest through the criminal justice system , with separate , appropriately located and effective bodies established to discharge any other functions ... ”

ORG ) at its CARDINALrd plenary session ( DATE ) adopted an Opinion on the Prosecutor 's Offices Act ( see above ) . Its relevant provisions provide as follows :

“ ... DATE ... It is , of course , clear that ORG is among those Offices which does not conform to the model which ORG considered to be essential . Moreover , in respect of the ORG 's predominant role in the NORP administration , which can hardly be described as limited or exceptional , ORG does not seem to conform to the tests ... which are as follows :

In addition to the essential role played by prosecutors in the criminal justice system , some member states of ORG provide for the participation of the prosecutor in the civil and administrative sectors for historical , efficiency and economic reasons but their role should always be exceptional ( principle of exceptionality ) .

The role of the prosecutor in civil and administrative procedures should not be predominant ; the intervention of the prosecutor can only be accepted when the objective of this procedure can not , or hardly be ensured otherwise ( principle of subsidiarity ) .

The participation of the prosecutor in the civil and administrative sectors should be limited and must always have a well - founded , recognisable aim ( principle of speciality ) .

GPE can entitle prosecutors to defend the interest of the state ( principle of protection of state interest ) .

Prosecutors can be entitled to initiate procedures or to intervene in ongoing procedures or to use various legal remedies to ensure legality ( principle of legality ) .

In case it is required for reasons of public interest and/or the legality of decisions ( e.g in cases of protection of the environment , insolvency etc . ) the participation of the prosecutor can be justified ( principle of public interest ) .

Protecting the rights and interests of disadvantaged groups of society unable to exercise their rights can be an exceptional reason for the intervention of the prosecutor ( principle of protection of human rights ) ...

Prosecutors should have no decision - making powers outside the criminal field or be given more rights than other parties before courts ( principle of equality of arms ) .

Prosecutors should not discriminate among persons when protecting their rights and should only intervene for well - grounded reasons ( principle of non - discrimination ) ...

There have been undoubted reforms in the NORP system of ORG , notably the limitations on the prosecutor 's powers of supervisory review of court decisions ... and the fact that intervention in court cases on behalf of the citizens is limited to cases where they are unable to act for themselves or where this is justified because numerous citizens are affected by the wrongdoing concerned ” .

Opinion no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) adopted by ORG , an advisory body set up by ORG by its decision of DATE , contains the following comparative analysis [ internal footnotes omitted ] :

“ CARDINAL . Court actions – irrespective of the procedural rules governing them ( rules of civil proceedings or special administrative law rules ) – are bound to court proceedings : prosecutors act as parties therein . Prosecution services did not report any special powers or authority when prosecutors take part in civil court proceedings as petitioners , they have the same powers as other parties . Their position is not exclusive , the proceedings may be started by other interested persons as well . In such cases prosecutors have definitely no decision - making powers regarding the merit of cases , their decisions concern only initiation of a case : submitting a petition to the civil law court .

Almost in all countries where prosecutors have competences in the non criminal field , prosecutors are empowered to launch new court - actions , to use ordinary and extraordinary remedies ( appeals ) as parties of proceedings . However some rules could be identified ( prohibition of extraordinary appeal or proposal for reopening of proceedings ; prohibition of settlement in the name of the party ) ...

The aims of non penal activities of prosecutors , irrespective of their substantive or procedural differences , are much more concordant : ensuring rule of law ( integrity of democratic decisions , legality , observance of law , remedy against violation of law ) , protection of rights and liberties of persons ( mostly of those incapable to protect their rights – minors , persons with unknown domicile , mentally incapables ) , protection of assets and interests of ORG , protection of public interest ( or of public order ) , harmonisation of jurisdiction of courts ( special remedies against final court decisions in the best interest of law , action as parties in such proceedings of the highest court levels ) ...

... [ T]he ORG is aware of occasional improper practice of public prosecutors acting outside the field of criminal justice assessed by the ORG or by certain ORG or criticised by other bodies of ORG . The most disconcerting events were in connection with rejection without reason of requests to start civil law court actions ; intervention in court proceedings without reasonable interest ( of ORG , of public interest or based on protection of rights ) violating the principle of equality of arms ; quashing of final judgment of courts violating the principle of legal certainty ( res judicata ) ; participation of prosecutors in panels of supreme courts confusing the decision - making role of judges with prosecutors tasks ; unlimited right to start litigation .

The contribution of prosecutors to the consolidation of the case - law of the courts is a fact in many member GPE . The role of prosecutors in this respect should not allow them to exercise undue influence on the final decision - taking process by judges . ”

The Opinion referred to the following principles applicable in the relevant field :

“ a. the principle of separation of powers should be respected in connection with the prosecutors ' tasks and activities outside the criminal law field and the role of courts to protect human rights ;

b. the respect of impartiality and fairness should characterise the action of prosecutors acting outside the criminal law field as well ;

c. these functions are carried out “ on behalf of society and in the public interest ” , to ensure the application of law while respecting fundamental rights and freedoms and within the competencies given to prosecutors by law , as well as the LAW and the case - law of the ORG ;

d. such competencies of prosecutors should be regulated by law as precisely as possible ;

e. there should be no undue intervention in the activities of prosecution services ;

PERSON when acting outside the criminal law field , prosecutors should enjoy the same rights and obligations as any other party and should not enjoy a privileged position in the court proceedings ( equality of arms ) ;

g. the action of prosecution services on behalf of society to defend public interest in non criminal matters must not violate the principle of binding force of final court decisions ( res judicata ) with some exceptions established in accordance with international obligations including the case - law of the ORG ;

h. the obligation of prosecutors to reason their actions and to make these reasons open for persons or institutions involved or interested in the case should be prescribed by law ;

i. the right of persons or institutions , involved or interested in the civil law cases to claim against measure or default of prosecutors should be assured ;

PERSON the developments in the case - law of the ORG concerning prosecution services ' activities outside the criminal law field should be closely followed in order to ensure that legal basis for such activities and the corresponding practice are in full compliance with the relevant judgments ... ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was injured in an accident at work . The applicant ’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

DATE and DATE she made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

On DATE the judge presiding the case was appointed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) and the case was assigned to a new first - instance court judge .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE none was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert .

At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ZT appealed to the ORG contesting the part of the judgment referring to costs and expenses of the proceedings .

On DATE the court allowed the appeal in part and remanded the case back to the first - instance court for re - examination .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL rush notices with the first - instance court .

On DATE the first - instance court issued a new decision on costs and expenses . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ZT appealed to ORG .

On DATE the court rejected the appeal . The decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .