Violation of Art. 6-1 (length);Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is a pensioner .

The applicant submitted that his pension had been regularly adjusted in line with the increase in wages according to LAW ( Zakon o osnovnim pravima iz mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja , ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) .

On DATE LAW and Other Benefits from Pension and Invalidity Insurance Funds and on ORG Funds ( ORG o usklađivanju mirovina i drugih novčanih primanja iz mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja , te upravljanju fondovima mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE – “ LAW ” ) entered into force , derogating , inter alia , LAW . LAW of the new law provided that the pensions were to be adjusted in line with the increase in living expenses .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG quashed certain provisions , including section CARDINAL , of the aforementioned DATE legislation as unconstitutional . The Government submitted that , as a result thereof , CARDINAL applications had been filed with ORG regional offices by those seeking adjustment of their pensions in accordance with ORG decision , that is , in line with the increase in wages .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG , ORG seeking adjustment of his pension for the period DATE .

Since ORG did not render a decision within the statutory time - limit of DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an appeal for failure to respond ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) with ORG , ORG as if his request had been denied .

Given that ORG also failed to decide on this appeal within the statutory time - limit of DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought an action for failure to respond ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) with ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) under LAW .

On DATE the Pensions Increase Act ( Zakon o povećanju mirovina radi otklanjanja razlika u razini mirovina ostvarenih u različitim razdobljima , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL of DATE ) entered into force . Stating as its aim the implementation of ORG decision , the LAW increased the pensions of those retired before DATE . On DATE ORG refused to institute proceedings for abstract constitutional review of the LAW .

On DATE ORG adopted a judgment ordering ORG to decide on the applicant ’s appeal within DATE . It also instructed ORG to adjust the applicant ’s pension for the period DATE in line with the increase in wages , pursuant to the section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , but also taking into consideration the increase already provided by LAW .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint challenging ORG judgment and complaining about the length of the proceedings . He argued that the court had instructed ORG wrongfully . He also alleged that ORG and ORG had failed to decide on his case within a reasonable time .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s complaint inadmissible . In respect of ORG judgment , it found the complaint premature since the administrative proceedings were still pending . In respect of the length of the proceedings , it held that the applicant had lodged the constitutional complaint when the case had already been decided ; however that remedy could only be used while the proceedings before ORG were still pending .

Meanwhile , following the judgment of ORG of DATE , on DATE ORG ordered ORG to issue a decision in the applicant ’s case .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request . It held that it was not possible to adjust the applicant ’s pension for the period and in the manner indicated by ORG since no subordinate legislation had been adopted enabling the ORG to calculate the exact amount of the applicant ’s pension for that period in line with increase of wages . In any event , the applicant ’s pension had been increased by LAW , which had fully implemented ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

On DATE the applicant brought an action with ORG challenging the decision of ORG .

On DATE the Act on the Implementation of the Constitutional Court ’s Decision of CARDINAL DATE ( Zakon o provođenju odluke PERSON CARDINAL . svibnja DATE . , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE – “ the LAW ” ) entered into force . LAW provides that retired persons whose pensions were reduced in the period DATE and DATE ( “ the pensioners ” ) have a right to compensation calculated as a difference between the pension to which they had been entitled and the pension actually received during that period , taking into account the increases provided by LAW . The compensation was to be obtained through a special fund that was to be established by subsequent legislation .

On DATE LAW ( Zakon o umirovljeničkom fondu , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) entered into force . The LAW provides that each pensioner has a right to a share in the ORG depending on the amount of compensation he or she is entitled to . In particular , CARDINAL ) provides that pensioners , who had already been compensated on the basis of a final and enforceable court decision , are not entitled to compensation from ORG . Section CARDINAL ) provides that pensioners involved in pending administrative proceedings , instituted with a view to obtaining compensation ( adjustment of their pensions ) , shall obtain that compensation pursuant to LAW .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment dismissing the applicant ’s claim . It found that the applicant actually retired under a special statute regulating the pensions of military personnel and that therefore ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE had not mandated the increase of his pension . This had been confirmed by the subsequent legislation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) implementing that decision . In any event , the legal gap that had followed the decision of ORG had been overcome by that legislation . Therefore , the applicant ’s claim for the adjustment of his pension would have already been satisfied by increases provided therein . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against that judgment . The proceedings are currently pending before that court .

DATE ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) reads as follows :

“ In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

NORP The relevant part of CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE – “ LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint whether or not all legal remedies have been exhausted if the competent court fails to decide a claim concerning the individual ’s rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him or her within a reasonable time ...

( CARDINAL ) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this section is upheld , the Constitutional Court shall set a time - limit within which the competent court must decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision issued under paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the Constitutional Court shall assess appropriate compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the ORG budget within DATE from the date a request for payment is lodged . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o općem upravnom postupku , ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) provide as follows :

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that in simple matters , where there is no need to undertake separate examination proceedings , an administrative authority shall give a decision and serve it on a party within DATE following the submission of an application . In all other , more complex cases , the authority shall give a decision and serve it on a party within DATE .

Section PERSON ) provides that a party whose application has not been decided and served within the time - limits set out in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) may lodge an appeal ( appeal for failure to respond , žalba zbog šutnje administracije ) as if his or her application had been dismissed .

Section CARDINAL ) provides that the decision on the appeal shall be given and served on a party as soon as possible but at the latest within DATE following the submission of the appeal .

Section CARDINAL ) provides that the second - instance administrative authority deciding on the appeal for failure to respond shall request the first - instance authority to give reasons for its omission . If it finds that the failure to respond was attributable to the party or the reasons for such omission were otherwise justified , the second - instance authority shall order the first - instance authority to give a decision within DATE . If it finds that the omission was not justified , it shall request the case - file .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that if the case - file contains sufficient information , the second - instance administrative authority shall decide the case . Otherwise , it shall first hear the case and take evidence , and then give a decision . Exceptionally , if it considers that such a procedure would save time and costs , it shall order the first - instance authority to hear the case and take evidence within a specified time - limit , whereupon it shall decide the case itself . Such a decision shall be final .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o upravnim sporovima , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL ) provide as follows :

Section CARDINAL ) provides that if the appellate authority fails to give a decision on a party ’s appeal against the first - instance decision within DATE , and fails to do so upon a repeated request within a further period of DATE , the party may bring an action in ORG ( action for failure to respond , tužba zbog šutnje administracije ) , as if his or her appeal had been dismissed .

Section PERSON ) provides that when the first - instance administrative authority fails to give a decision against which no appeal lies , the party may directly bring an action in ORG .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that , in matters where the right of appeal exists , if a first - instance administrative authority fails to give a decision on a party ’s application within DATE , the party may submit his or her application to the appellate administrative authority . Against the latter authority ’s decision the party may bring an action in ORG , and if the authority fails to give a decision , the party may bring an administrative action under the conditions set out in paragraph CARDINAL .

Section PERSON ) provides that when ORG , following the action for failure to respond , finds for the plaintiff , it shall either instruct the respondent administrative authority how to decide the case on points of law , or shall itself rule on the application ( acting as a court of full jurisdiction under paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL ) provides that , in the execution of the judgment rendered under section PERSON ) , the administrative authority shall issue its decision immediately but at the latest within DATE . Otherwise , a party may by a special submission request it to do so . If the authority does not issue a decision within DATE following that request , a party may apply to ORG .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that if such an application is made , the ORG shall first ask the administrative authority to give reasons for its omission . The authority shall reply immediately but at the latest within DATE . If the authority fails to do so , or if the reasons given do not justify the failure to decide , the ORG shall give a decision entirely substituting for the decision of the administrative authority .

In case no . U - IIIA/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , ORG was seized under LAW of LAW to examine the length of administrative proceedings instituted in DATE when the complainant had brought an action in ORG for ORG failure to give a decision in his case . In DATE ORG ordered the ORG to give a decision within DATE . ORG gave a negative decision in DATE . The complainant then brought a second administrative action , challenging that decision . In DATE ORG quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case . ORG again gave a negative decision and served it on the complainant in DATE . On DATE the complainant had brought a third administrative action , which was dismissed by ORG in DATE . Meanwhile , on DATE he lodged his constitutional complaint arguing that ORG should , like ORG , take into consideration the overall length of administrative proceedings when examining whether or not they exceeded a reasonable time .

Following its previous practice ( decisions no . U - III-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , and ORG of DATE ) , ORG held that only the inactivity of the judicial authorities was relevant for a breach of LAW . In its view it was not possible for proceedings before the administrative authorities to last unreasonably long because the statutes regulating those proceedings contained the presumption that the application had been dismissed if the administrative authorities failed to give a decision within the statutory time - limits ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . ORG therefore examined only the length of the proceedings in their part between the introduction of the complainant ’s third action in ORG and the lodging of the constitutional complaint . It dismissed the constitutional complaint finding that the proceedings had lasted DATE .


Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione personae, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the first applicant concluded a joint venture agreement with the “ ORG GPE ” , concerning the setting - up and joint operation of a casino on its LOC .

At that time , the said hotel was owned by “ GPE ” ( hereinafter “ ORG ” ) , a major “ socially - owned company ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) with an annual turnover in excess of MONEY ( “ USD ” ) .

Article CARDINAL of the joint venture agreement provided that the first applicant was entitled to collect PERCENT of any earnings made as part of the joint operation of the casino in question , whilst ORG had the right to collect PERCENT thereof . LAW , however , stated that ORG would , in any event , be entitled as guaranteed minimum earnings to a payment of MONEY DATE by the first applicant .

The casino opened in DATE . By DATE , however , it closed due to various financial difficulties , and a number of disputes between the parties followed .

NORP In DATE the first applicant brought proceedings against ORG before ORG of ORG ( hereinafter the “ ORG ” ) , seeking repossession of the casino as well as compensation for breach of contract .

On DATE ORG , having resolved issues regarding the first applicant 's status , ruled partly in its favour . Specifically , ORG was ordered to : ( a ) pay compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , CARDINAL , plus PERCENT interest , on account of the first applicant 's inability to operate the casino in question DATE and DATE ; ( b ) allow the first applicant to retake possession thereof ; and ( c ) effectively manage its operation for DATE after reopening it . The sum of USD MONEY , i.e. USD CARDINAL DATE , was arrived at by multiplying ORG 's minimum DATE earnings on the basis of the agreed ratio ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG in GPE ordered the enforcement of the arbitration award of DATE , in its entirety .

Following several suspensions and adjournments , on DATE ORG informed ORG that ORG had been transferred to the first applicant 's bank account .

On DATE ORG ordered the payment of the remaining USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , together with the interest accrued .

By DATE the debtors , ORG as CARDINAL successor companies of the original ORG company , appear to have fully complied with this order .

On DATE the first applicant requested repossession of the casino and sought to be allowed to effectively manage it for DATE after reopening it .

Following CARDINAL oral hearings , on DATE ORG accepted this request and ordered the debtors to comply therewith .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' motion to order the full and effective enforcement of the arbitration award , stating that it did not have the competence , ratione materiae , to consider complaints alleging individual human rights violations .

On DATE ORG fined the debtors for their failure to comply with the repossession order and mandated repossession within DATE . Initially , the fine imposed was MONEY ( “ ORG ” ) per debtor ( MONEY ) , but on DATE this amount was reduced to ORG CARDINAL each ( MONEY ) .

In DATE the applicants filed a complaint with ORG and GPE .

DATE and DATE ORG fined the debtors for their failure to comply with the repossession order on CARDINAL separate occasions . The fines imposed totalled ORG CARDINAL ( MONEY ) .

On DATE ORG terminated the enforcement by means of imposing fines , noting that the maximum statutory amount had been reached in accordance with LAW .

On DATE this decision was confirmed .

On DATE ORG rejected the first applicant 's subsequent request for it to impose additional fines on the debtors .

On DATE this decision was confirmed .

On DATE ORG noted that on CARDINAL DATE ORG had ordered the restructuring of the debtors and stayed the enforcement proceedings until the conclusion of this process .

In DATE ORG instituted civil proceedings before ORG in GPE , seeking annulment of the arbitration award . Once again , it raised issues regarding the first applicant 's status .

On DATE ORG rejected this claim , as did ORG on DATE and , ultimately , ORG on DATE , at third and final instance .

On DATE ORG filed a request for the reopening of the annulment proceedings .

Following CARDINAL remittals , on DATE ORG rejected this request . In so doing , inter alia , it noted that the issues raised by the plaintiffs had already been considered , in CARDINAL form or another , within the impugned annulment suit .

On DATE the High Commercial Court confirmed this decision on appeal .

Following prior remittals , on DATE ORG ruled partly in favour of the first applicant . ORG were thus ordered to pay a total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , plus interest , on account of the first applicant 's inability to operate the casino DATE and DATE .

On DATE the High Commercial Court upheld this judgment , and it thereby became enforceable .

On DATE ORG reduced the amount awarded to ORG , plus interest . It estimated the lost earnings only on the basis of the respondent 's minimum DATE profit , as stipulated in the joint venture agreement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the meantime , on DATE , the first applicant sought enforcement of the judgment rendered on DATE , by means of a bank account transfer .

On DATE ORG issued an enforcement order .

On DATE ORG terminated the enforcement proceedings . In so doing , it noted that , notwithstanding the fact that ORG had subsequently reduced the compensation awarded to ORG , plus interest , MONEY in excess of this amount had already been transferred to the first applicant 's bank account .

Following prior remittals , on DATE , and as rectified on DATE , ORG ruled partly in favour of the first applicant . It thus ordered ORG to pay a total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , plus interest , on account of the first applicant 's inability to operate the casino DATE and DATE . This time , ORG also estimated the lost earnings on the basis of ORG 's minimum DATE profit only , as stipulated in the joint venture agreement .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeals on points of law ( revizije ) filed by the parties .

In the meantime , on DATE , the first applicant sought enforcement of the judgment rendered on DATE by means of a bank account transfer .

The enforcement proceedings would appear to be still pending .

In DATE ORG in GPE charged the second applicant with forgery . In particular , it was alleged that he had made fraudulent statements regarding the first applicant 's status under NORP law , and had forged several powers of attorney in order to get involved in the above proceedings .

On DATE the second applicant was placed in pre - trial detention but by DATE he was released .

On DATE ORG in GPE terminated the criminal proceedings against the second applicant . It stated that the first applicant was indeed a registered entity under NORP law , that the impugned powers of attorney were authentic , and that there was no evidence whatsoever indicating that the second applicant had committed a crime .

DATE Additional criminal proceedings , concerning related “ fraud and forgery issues ” , were terminated on similar grounds by ORG in GPE on DATE .

DATE . On an unspecified date ORG was renamed ORG .

On DATE the second applicant bought from PERSON , at that time the first applicant 's sole owner , “ a part of the first applicant ” consisting of all of its rights and pecuniary interests derived from the joint venture agreement of CARDINAL DATE . The second applicant thus became “ the owner of this part of the company ” , as well as the first applicant 's “ Director and President ” in all matters related to GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE confirmed that , as of DATE , the second applicant held PERCENT of the first applicant 's shares and was its Deputy General Manager .

The first applicant 's ORG , as certified in DATE , reaffirmed the above and noted that the second applicant was indeed the first applicant 's sole representative in respect of all matters concerning the joint venture in question .

On DATE ORG issued a statement informing the public that an exclusive gambling licence had been granted to a company called ORG . The licence had been issued for DATE in respect of a casino to be located in GPE .

On DATE the first applicant informed ORG about its outstanding claim in respect of ORG .

On DATE the first applicant sent another warning letter to ORG .

On DATE , however , ORG , following a public competition organised by ORG , sold some of its real estate to ORG . CARDINAL of the buildings sold was ORG . Article CARDINAL of the sales contract provided , inter alia , that the buyer shall not , within DATE , be entitled to mortgage or otherwise burden the hotel , unless it obtains prior written authorisation to this effect from ORG .

Despite the restructuring and sale of some of their assets , ORG are themselves still socially - owned companies .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that enforcement proceedings are urgent .

Articles DATE and CARDINAL § CARDINAL explicitly recognise arbitration awards as valid legal bases for the formal institution of enforcement proceedings .

Article CARDINAL states that enforcement proceedings shall also be carried out at the request of a claimant not specifically named as the creditor in the final court decision , providing the former can prove , by means of an “ official or another legally certified document ” , that the entitlement in question has subsequently been transferred to it from the original creditor . This provision shall , mutatis mutandis , also be applied in respect of a debtor who has not been specifically named as such in the final court decision at issue .

Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL regulate enforcement in situations where a debtor 's compliance is required : in particular , where a debtor has been ordered to perform a certain action , desist therefrom or accede thereto . The system provides for the successive imposition of fines up to a certain maximum which , if the debtor happens to be a natural person and the fines can not be enforced , may ultimately be converted into a number of prison DATE .

The substance of LAW corresponds , in the relevant part , to that of LAW referred to above .

LAW entered into force on DATE , thereby repealing LAW CARDINAL . In accordance with Article CARDINAL , however , all enforcement proceedings instituted prior to DATE are to be concluded pursuant to the DATE legislation .

Pursuant to LAW , an arbitration award has the force of a final judgment in respect of the parties to the proceedings , unless the arbitration agreement itself provides for an appeal to a higher instance .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL set out the deadlines and the specific grounds for the annulment of an arbitration award , which can only be sought through the institution of a separate civil suit before a “ regular ” court of law .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that a domestic arbitration award shall have the force of a final domestic judgment and shall be enforceable .

This Act entered into force in DATE and thereby repealed the above - cited provisions of LAW .

DATE . Articles DATE set out the details as regards the restructuring of companies about to be privatised . This restructuring , however , is optional and a company may be sold without having been restructured if ORG so decides .

Article PERSON provides , inter alia , that all enforcement proceedings instituted in respect of companies undergoing restructuring shall be stayed until the conclusion of this process .

The relevant provisions of this legislation are set out in the NORP GPE and Others v. GPE judgment ( ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


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

The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment in a case which had been introduced by the applicant ( PERSON Fischer v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , unreported ) . It found a violation of LAW in that the applicant had consecutively been tried and punished for CARDINAL offences containing the same essential elements , first by the administrative authority for the offence of drunken driving under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of FAC and , after that decision had become final , by ORG for causing death by negligence with the special element under LAW of LAW of “ allowing himself to become intoxicated ” , whereby intoxication is irrebuttably presumed where a person ’s blood alcohol level is QUANTITY .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG under Article CARDINALa of LAW ( see below ) , requesting a retrial .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to hold a hearing .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application without holding a hearing .

ORG found that the requirements of Article CARDINALa of LAW were not met , as the PERSON v. GPE judgment had not established that there had been a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL “ on account of a decision of a criminal court ” . In reaching this conclusion ORG had regard to the ORG ’s reasoning whereby the question whether or not the non bis in idem principle was violated concerned the relationship between the CARDINAL offences at issue but not the order in which the CARDINAL sets of proceedings were conducted , and that the Contracting State remained free to determine which of the QUANTITY offences was to be prosecuted .

ORG decision was served on DATE .

Under the heading “ retrial ” ( Erneuerung des PERSON ) the Code of Criminal Procedure ( GPE ) provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . If it is established in a judgment of ORG that there has been a violation of ORG ( PERSON [ Official PERSON ] no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) or of one of its Protocols on account of a decision or order of a criminal court , a retrial shall be held on application in so far as it can not be ruled out that the violation might have affected the content of a criminal court ’s decision in a manner detrimental to the person concerned .

All applications for a retrial shall be decided by ORG . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . On an application for a retrial , the ORG shall deliberate in private only where the Procurator General or the judge rapporteur proposes that a decision be taken on CARDINAL of the grounds set out in DATE and CARDINAL .

Where ORG deliberates in private , it may refuse an application

if it unanimously considers the application to be manifestly ill - founded .


Violation of Art. 10;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is a journalist on the PERSON newspaper .

On DATE the newspaper published an article by the applicant under the headline “ DATE they impounded the car ” ( « ORG год арестовали автомобиль ORG ) . The article was prompted by the following letter written by PERSON reproduced in italics in the opening passage of the article :

“ On DATE my husband ... had a traffic accident . PERSON , a judge of the [ FAC ] regional court , crashed into his car ... The traffic police officers did not find us responsible and we calmed down . But DATE we received by registered mail a statement of claim , requesting that PERSON be compensated for damage in the amount of MONEY , and an order for a charge on our property and our car issued by a judge . We had not been informed of the hearing and we consider that our civil rights were violated as we were convicted in our absence . We feel that PERSON is taking advantage of her office and connections in the judiciary ” .

The article related the versions of the traffic accident by Judge PERSON ( as described in her statement of claim ) , by traffic police officers , by PERSON and PERSON and by eyewitnesses . It concluded as follows :

“ So far the NORP ORG [ of ORG ] has held CARDINAL hearings ... The date of the next hearing is not fixed yet . PERSON and PERSON remember menacing words that PERSON [ Baskova ] uttered immediately after the traffic accident ‘ You will buy me a new car anyway!’ ; they shudder but they will defend themselves to the very end . ”

On DATE Judge PERSON sued the newspaper , the applicant and PERSON for defamation and refutation of untrue information contained in the statement “ PERSON is taking advantage of her office and connections in the judiciary ” .

On DATE Judge PERSON requested the court to order interim measures , and notably an interlocutory injunction on the newspaper to prevent publication of “ any articles , letters or materials about the factual circumstances of the traffic accident of DATE , as well as about the court proceedings concerning that accident until they [ had ] finished ” .

On DATE a judge of ORG of ORG issued a decision to indicate interim measures ( определение об обеспечении иска ) . The decision endorsed the arguments put forward by Judge PERSON and read , in its entirety , as follows :

“ The plaintiff has referred to the following circumstances . The article ‘ DATE they impounded the car’ ( PERSON , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) was published before a decision on the merits of her claim for damages against PERSON had been issued , after the ORG of Yaroslavl had suspended the proceedings on DATE and commissioned a technical study at the defendant ’s request . The article ends with the assertion that PERSON and PERSON ‘ will defend themselves to the very end’ . The plaintiff considers that further developments in the judicial proceedings – upon their resumption DATE may also be reported by the newspaper in such a manner as to confirm the damaging information and conclusion already disseminated by the author .

[ The plaintiff ] considers that under these circumstances a failure to indicate interim measures can impede the enforcement of the judgment [ in the defamation claim ] : otherwise , alongside with publication of a rectification of the information damaging to her , the newspaper would be entitled to continue publications stating the opposite view , which would undermine the judicial protection of her impaired rights .

Pursuant to LAW of GPE , a court may , at a request of a party to the case , indicate interim measures if a failure to indicate them could impede the enforcement of a court judgment .

Having regard to the above , I consider that PERSON request is to be granted . ”

ORG issued DATE with immediate effect – an interlocutory injunction worded as follows :

“ To enjoin the editor ’s office of the PERSON newspaper from publishing any articles , letters or other materials written by anyone , which relate the factual circumstances of the traffic accident on DATE with the participation of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , or the circumstances of the judicial proceedings on PERSON claim for damages against PERSON until such time as the present dispute has been resolved .

To serve a copy of the injunction on the bailiffs’ service of LOC of GPE , PERSON , the editor ’s office of the PERSON newspaper , the newspaper ’s reporter PERSON , and PERSON . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal against the injunction , finding as follows :

“ The regional court considers that in the instant case a failure to indicate interim measures would impede not only the enforcement of the court judgment but also the examination of the [ defamation ] action .

The arguments in the appeal to the effect that the [ injunction ] violated the defendant ’s constitutional right to impart information can not be taken into account as the prohibition only covers publication of materials concerning CARDINAL specific traffic accident ... Publication of materials about these facts before the judgment has been made would be contrary to the interests of the justice . The interim measures indicated by the court are proportionate ” .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment in the defamation claim . It did not accept the argument by the newspaper ’s lawyer that the contested statement was PERSON subjective opinion which was evident from the introductory expression “ we feel that ” . The court considered it to be “ the author ’s allegation ... about PERSON using her office and connections ... in the framework of lodging her claim and obtaining interim measures ” . As the defendants could not prove the truthfulness of that statement , the court ordered publication of a rectification in the newspaper . On DATE the ORG upheld that judgment .

The Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows :

“ At the request of a party to the case , a judge or a court may indicate interim measures . Such measures may be indicated at any stage of the proceedings if a failure to indicate them could impede or make impossible the enforcement of the court judgment . ”

“ CARDINAL . Interim measures may include :

( CARDINAL ) an injunction restraining the defendant from carrying out specific actions ;

When necessary , a judge or a court may indicate any other interim measures that correspond to the purposes described in LAW ...

Interim measures must be proportionate to the plaintiff ’s claims . ”

“ CARDINAL . ... If the claim has been granted , interim measures remain effective until the judgment has been enforced . ”


Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is the owner of a grocery shop in ORG which he runs with his brother .

According to the arrest report , drafted on DATE at TIME and signed by the applicant and his brother , police officers had received information that shopkeepers on FAC were not opening their shops as a protest to mark the second anniversary of the arrest of PERSON , the leader of the ORG ( ORG Party ) , an illegal armed organisation . When the officers arrived at the street in question they asked the applicant and his brother to open their shop . The applicant and his brother swore at them and shouted slogans . In the meantime , a small crowd of children and women had started to throw stones at the police cars . The police officers requested , via wireless radio , reinforcements from the police station . CARDINAL police officers sustained injuries while trying to arrest the applicant and his brother . The police officers then used force to subdue the applicant and his brother before arresting them for obstructing an official in the course of his duties . It is also stated that the suspects reached for the gun of one of the police officers . It appears that QUANTITY police officers took part in the applicant and his brother 's arrest .

In his application form the applicant submitted that , on DATE , before he had opened the shutters of his shop , a number of police officers arrived and started smashing the shop shutters and windows with sledgehammers . When the applicant and his brother attempted to stop the police officers , they were beaten up , arrested and subsequently placed in police custody .

According to a medical report drawn up at the ORG branch of ORG DATE , at TIME , there was QUANTITY reddish bruise and a traumatic oedema on the front of the applicant 's left arm . There was also another red - coloured bruise , measuring QUANTITY , on the outside of his left thigh .

The same doctor also found a number of injuries on the applicant 's brother , including a CARDINAL x QUANTITY wound on the right parietal region , a QUANTITY bruise on the right side of his neck , a QUANTITY bruise on the right side of his lower back and left shoulder , slight erosion on his right wrist and a number of superficial grazes .

In the meantime , on DATE , CARDINAL of the police officers were examined first at ORG , and later at the ORG branch of ORG .

According to the medical report drawn up at ORG , at TIME , police officer M.A.A. had sustained a haematoma on his left eye , had redness and sensitivity on the right side of his chest , a haematoma and swelling on his left hand and a swelling and superficial graze on his right hand . At TIME Mr M.A.A. was examined at ORG , where the doctor found that the police officer had sustained a haematoma on his left eye and a traumatic oedema on his left cheek , pain and sensitivity on his left hand and the right side of his ribs and that he had slight erosion on the right hand .

According to the medical report drawn up at ORG , at TIME , police officer H.A.K. had a broad patch of redness on the right side of his neck and shoulder region . At TIME he was examined at ORG , where the doctor found that the police officer had a number of reddish bruises on the right and front of the neck and felt pain and sensitivity in the right shoulder .

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG granted the police authorisation to detain the applicant and CARDINAL other suspects who had been detained for similar acts on that date for an additional period of DATE .

On DATE , while he was still being detained in police custody , the applicant was questioned . In TIME of the questioning , the applicant was recorded as having stated that he sympathised with the policies of the ORG . On DATE he had found a leaflet on the floor outside the shop that had been prepared and distributed by the ORG , inviting local businesses not to open their shops on DATE . Following this invitation , he had intended not to open his shop until TIME He stated that he had followed such instructions in the past .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG who noted a QUANTITY bruise on the front of his right arm , a QUANTITY bruise on the top of his left foot and a QUANTITY bruise on his left thigh .

DATE the applicant was brought before the prosecutor at ORG and then before the duty judge at the same court , where he retracted the statement he had made in police custody and said that he had merely been late in opening his shop on DATE because he had guests at his house ; he had not been protesting at all . In the statement taken by the prosecutor , the applicant was recorded as having said that “ he had been beaten up by the police officers but he did not wish to make a complaint ” . Before the duty judge the applicant claimed that a police officer named PERSON had hit him with a truncheon when he had tried to prevent the latter from breaking his door down , and that he had neither hit any of the police officers nor shouted any slogans . The duty judge ordered the applicant 's remand in custody .

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment charging the applicant and his brother with the offence of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation , under LAW of LAW .

On DATE the criminal proceedings before ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) commenced .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant submitted a written petition to the trial court requesting his release . In particular , he claimed that , during his arrest , the police had beaten him and his brother with truncheons , but that he was not complaining about any particular police officer .

On DATE the ORG held its first hearing , when it heard evidence from the accused , the police officers and defence witnesses . The applicant claimed , inter alia , that the police officers had tried to break the shutters of his shop with a sledgehammer and that , when he had tried to prevent them , by holding the sledgehammer , they had beaten and arrested him . He also retracted his statements given to the police on the ground that he had signed them without reading them . The CARDINAL defence witnesses heard by the court stated that they had not seen the applicant shouting , resisting or swearing at the police or a crowd of people throwing stones at the police . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL defence witnesses stated that the applicant had been beaten during his arrest .

The police officers who had arrested the applicant reiterated that the applicant and his brother had refused to open the shutters of their shop and that when , in accordance with the order from the Governor , they had tried to break open the shutters , the applicant and his brother had sworn at them and attacked them . They stated that a crowd of people had been shouting and swearing and attacking them , but that by the time the reinforcements arrived they had all dispersed ; only the applicant and his brother had been arrested .

NORP In hearings held on CARDINAL and DATE both the prosecutor and the applicant 's representative stated that they did not want an additional investigation . On the latter date the trial court released the applicant pending trial . It also decided to hear all the witnesses once again in order to dispel factual contradictions . After having reheard CARDINAL of the defence witnesses , CARDINAL of whom altered his testimony , on DATE the trial court considered that , although certain inconsistencies remained , the facts had been sufficiently elucidated .

On DATE the trial court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . The applicant 's brother was acquitted .

The applicant appealed and asked ORG to hold a hearing . In his grounds of appeal the applicant claimed , in particular , that his statements given to the police had been taken under duress . He reiterated that , during the arrest , he and his brother had been beaten by the police officers , as attested by eyewitnesses , whereas there was no evidence that he and his brother were responsible for the injuries sustained by the police officers .

NORP In his written observations submitted to ORG , the prosecutor asked for the conviction to be quashed as the applicant 's guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt .

On DATE ORG , observing that the applicant 's lawyer was absent , decided not to hold a hearing and upheld the applicant 's conviction .

On DATE the applicant was released from prison .

On DATE , upon a request by the applicant to benefit from Law no . DATE , ORG reviewed its previous decision and found that the applicant 's conviction and sentence met the requirements of this PERSON . Accordingly , it “ annulled ” the applicant 's conviction and sentence . Since no one objected to that decision , it became final on DATE .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in the GPE v. GPE judgment , ( no . GPE , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , and the Göç v. GPE judgment ( [ ORG ] , no . MONEY , § CARDINAL , ORG PERSON ) .

Law no . DATE ( the Law on Reintegration into ORG ) , which entered into force on DATE , provided for amnesties under certain conditions and reduced sentences for members of terrorist organisations .


CASE OF BISERICA ADEVARAT ORTODOXA DIN MOLDOVA v. MOLDOVA

Violation of Art. 9;Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 13+9;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+9;No separate issue under Art. 6 and 11;Non-pecuniary damage - financial claim;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants joined together to form the “ ORG in GPE ” ( “ the NORP ” ) and applied for registration by the Government on the basis of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . When the authorities refused to register the ORG by letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicants initiated court proceedings .

On DATE ORG accepted their claim and ordered the Government to register the ORG . The court also awarded each of the applicants CARDINAL Moldovan lei ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) in compensation for the non - pecuniary damage suffered .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment , finding that the Government had not submitted any evidence that the ORG would harm public order , health or morals . That judgment was final and enforceable .

The applicants subsequently made requests for the enforcement of the final judgment . In turn , ORG made requests to the Government to comply with the judgment , to no avail .

On DATE LAW was amended and the procedure for the registration of religious denominations was simplified . On the basis of these amendments , on DATE the applicants asked the “ ORG for ORG ” to register the ORG . They relied on LAW above - mentioned law ( as amended on DATE , see below ) and on the final judgment in their favour ordering the ORG ’s registration .

NORP By letter of DATE ORG ( “ the Service ” ) rejected that request because it “ had not received any request for the registration of any religious denomination ” . The ORG could not register the ORG until the relevant ORG had been established and the necessary documents had been filed with it . On DATE the applicants submitted the relevant documents to the ORG .

On DATE ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) sent the enforcement warrant for enforcement to the ORG . By its letters of CARDINAL and DATE and DATE the ORG requested the ORG to comply with the judgment of DATE .

In a letter of DATE the ORG replied to the ORG that the applicants had refused to re - submit documents requested from them and to explain certain parts of the statute of the ORG regarding its canonical subordination to foreign churches .

On DATE an officer working for the ORG found that the judgment of DATE had not been enforced and asked the court to sanction those responsible for the non - enforcement . The officer sent additional requests to the ORG and ORG on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , again asking that those responsible for the non - enforcement be punished .

The Government made CARDINAL attempts to re - open the proceedings by claiming the discovery of new and relevant information which had not been previously known . These requests were rejected by decisions of ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE and DATE .

In DATE the applicants submitted a new request and a set of accompanying documents , requesting the registration of the ORG . They received no reply .

The pecuniary part of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was enforced on DATE .

The relevant domestic law has been set out in the cases of ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXII ) and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( extracts ) ) .

In addition , the relevant provisions of the PERSON for the amendment of LAW ( no.CARDINAL , DATE ) read as follows :

“ Article I

Article CARDINAL shall have the following text :

‘ LAW . Recognition of cults .

In order to be able to organise themselves and to function , a religious denomination shall submit to the ORG authority [ dealing with ] religious denominations a declaration on their functioning and organisation , annexing their statute ( by - laws ) for their organisation and functioning including information about the system of administration and functioning , together with the fundamental principles of its faith .

The declaration mentioned [ above ] shall be submitted to the ORG authority for religious denominations , which shall make a registration in the Registry of religious denominations within DATE from the date of submission of the declaration.’

... LAW

( CARDINAL ) NORP for registration which were pending at the date of entry into force of the present Law shall be considered to be declarations within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of the Law on Religious Denominations and shall be examined in accordance with the provisions of that Article . ”


GALENA VRANISKOSKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Christos Rozakis;George Nicolaou;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . The applicant lives in GPE . She submitted the application in her name and on behalf of PERSON , her late husband , who died on DATE . The applicant was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

Under a sales agreement of DATE , the applicant obtained title to agricultural land in a place called PERSON , near GPE . According to the applicant , in DATE the land authorities issued a certificate attesting that the plot in issue was outside the area designated for construction ( надвор од градежен реон ) . On that property , the applicant and her husband constructed a DATE house and garage without a building permit , as was the case with houses built by other individuals in PERSON . The applicant lives in an apartment in GPE . On an unspecified date in DATE , they also started constructing a house of worship and supporting walls ( hereafter referred to as “ the structures ” ) .

On DATE an inspector from ORG ( hereafter “ the Ministry ” ) carried out an on - site inspection of the property . A report was drawn up according to which the applicant and her husband had started building the structures without a building permit . ORG ordered them to demolish the structures immediately under threat of a forcible demolition ( “ the demolition order ” ) . Referring to the on - site inspection and the report that had been drawn up , it stated that they had started building the structures without a permit . Under the order , the demolition costs were to be borne by the applicant and her husband . It relied on section QUANTITY of LAW , as valid at the material time , under which an appeal against the order would not have had suspensive effect ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) .

In a separate decision , the ORG decided that the demolition order had become enforceable ( “ the enforcement order ” ) . It ordered the applicant and her husband to destroy the structures immediately . It reiterated that they were to bear the costs of demolition and that an appeal would not have a suspensive effect . In this context , it referred to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE ( “ the LAW , see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) , as valid at that time .

The Government submitted copies of CARDINAL delivery receipts ( “ the receipts ” , доставници ) according to which on DATE the demolition and enforcement orders were served , in the applicant ’s apartment , on a minister ( свештеник ) who had refused to identify himself and to give information about the applicant ’s whereabouts . The minister had also refused to sign the receipts . Both receipts were dated and signed by a bailiff .

On DATE the Ministry issued an announcement informing the applicant that the demolition and enforcement orders were at its LOC and that they would be posted on ORG notice board since she could not be found at her place of residence . On DATE , the bailiff , with a handwritten note on the announcement , indicated that it had been handed over , in the applicant ’s apartment , to a minister who had refused to identify himself . The latter did not sign the announcement .

According to the applicant , at TIME on DATE , CARDINAL armed police officers arrived on her property in PERSON accompanying workers engaged by ORG to enforce the demolition order . QUANTITY police officers , without a court warrant or any other decision , entered the applicant ’s weekend house and forced her husband and their son outside . They were allegedly forced to watch the demolition of the structures . The Government contested the applicant ’s version of events regarding the demolition of the structures , without giving any further details .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON requested the Ministry to serve the demolition order on them . They stated that they had never received it and referred to an announcement of DATE on the notice board in the Ministry concerning their case .

On DATE the ORG replied that there was evidence in the case file that the demolition order had been served on them and that accordingly there were no grounds for a repeated service .

On DATE the applicant and her husband appealed against the demolition and enforcement orders before the Government second - instance Commission ( “ the Commission ” ) arguing that they had never been served on them . They complained that even assuming that the announcement posted on the ORG ’s notice board was to be regarded as the equivalent of service , the demolition order could only have become enforceable DATE after DATE , as set forth in CARDINAL of the LAW . On DATE they requested the Commission to decide , within DATE , their appeals . On DATE the applicant and her husband lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG complaining about the Commission ’s failure to decide their appeals ( тужба поради молчење на администрацијата ) .

On DATE the Commission dismissed , by CARDINAL separate decisions , the appeals , finding that the demolition and enforcement orders had been given in accordance with the law . It stated that the applicant and her husband had started building the structures without a permit , as required under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . As to the applicant ’s complaints about the improper service of the orders , the Commission stated :

“ ... the ORG has examined the [ applicant ’s ] arguments in the appeal and finds that they are unsubstantiated and without any legal effect , since no construction work can be undertaken without a building permit being obtained ... ”

On DATE the applicant and her husband challenged the ORG ’s decisions by way of an appeal on points of law in which they reiterated their earlier arguments .

On DATE ORG rendered CARDINAL decisions dismissing their appeals . It found no force in their arguments that the administrative bodies had ignored their complaints about the alleged failure to serve the demolition order on them . In this connection it stated that “ the service was carried out in accordance with the Act ” . Referring to the case file , the court held that the inspector responsible had correctly ordered , under section CARDINAL of LAW , the demolition of the structures . The decisions were sent to the applicant on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW , as valid at the material time , provided that a decision should , in principle , be handed over to the individual concerned in person .

Under section DATE , the decision was to be served , in principle , at the home of the recipient .

Under section DATE , if the recipient was not at home , the decision would be served on an adult member of his or her family or to a housekeeper or neighbour , with their consent .

Under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW , when the service could not be effected in accordance with section CARDINAL , the bailiff would return the decision to the competent body . A written announcement indicating the place where the decision was kept would be posted on the door of the recipient ’s home . Under sub - section CARDINAL of this paragraph , such service was regarded lawful and any later damage or destruction of the announcement would not affect the lawfulness of the service .

Section CARDINAL of the Act provided that in the case of multiple unidentifiable recipients a decision would be served by way of a public announcement on the notice board of the competent body . Service would be considered to have been effected DATE after the posting of the announcement .

Under section CARDINAL of the LAW , if the person concerned or an adult member of his or her family refused to be served with a decision without any legal ground , the bailiff would either leave the decision in the recipient ’s home or would post it on the door , which would be considered as equivalent to the service . The bailiff would mark the date , hour and reasons for refusal of the service , as well as the place where the decision was put .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided that a first - instance decision would become enforceable after being served on the interested party . That applied where an appeal did not suspend enforcement .

Under section DATE ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , as then valid , the competent inspectorate would order immediate demolition of buildings constructed without a building permit . An appeal did not suspend the enforcement of the demolition order .

Under section CARDINAL of LAW , a construction built without a building permit does not confer to an investor title to the unlawfully erected building . Until such building is validated or demolished , the investor , equally to an owner , has a right to judicial protection , unless otherwise regulated by law .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE and Wear . He was represented before ORG , solicitors in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicant ’s wife died on CARDINAL DATE . His formal claim for widows’ benefits was made on DATE and was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . On DATE the applicant appealed and reconsideration took place on DATE . The previous decision was upheld . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The Government submitted that the applicant was not in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim . The applicant , who had initially submitted that he had ceased to be eligible for child benefit at some time in DATE , failed to submit any comments in reply , although invited to do so .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV , and Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .