Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Review of conviction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

At TIME on DATE the applicant and his father went to ORG in PERSON to obtain a copy of a document . The clerk refused to give it to them . A quarrel ensued . A prosecutor came in and ordered the applicant to leave the LOC . A brawl ensued . The police , who had been called in , drew up a procès - verbal saying that , by insulting the prosecutor and trying to hit him , the applicant had committed an offence under the CARDINAL Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism ( “ the DATE Decree ” – see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The applicant refused to sign the procès - verbal , saying that he would present his objections before a court .

TIME the police made an order for the applicant ’s detention under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of ORG , then in force . The order said that the applicant was being detained for committing an offence under the DATE Decree .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was brought before ORG . He was assisted by CARDINAL counsel . The court heard the applicant , CARDINAL witnesses , and the applicant ’s counsel . In a decision of DATE it found the applicant guilty of an offence under LAW for insulting and trying to hit the prosecutor , and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ detention in the LOC of ORG . The court went on to order , by reference to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that during his detention the applicant was to carry out socially useful work adapted to his health , age and professional skills ; he was to take part in public works on the territory of GPE . The decision was final and immediately enforceable .

The applicant was released at TIME on DATE . It is unclear what work exactly was carried out by him during his detention .

Decree No . CARDINAL of DATE on Combating Minor Hooliganism was passed by the then existing ORG of ORG under a simplified legislative procedure , as possible under LAW § CARDINAL and LAW then in LAW . It was published in ORG on DATE , as required under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , as worded at that time . ORG has on a number of occasions said that the LAW has the same force as an ORG ( опр. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , I о. ; опр. № DATE от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON , петчленен св ; опр. № DATE от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , I о. ; опр. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , I о. ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Decree defines minor hooliganism as an indecent act consisting of uttering swearwords , insults or other offensive words in a public place and in front of many people , in an offensive attitude towards other citizens or public officials , or in a quarrel , fight or suchlike that breach the peace but due to their lower degree of dangerousness do not amount to the criminal offence of hooliganism . Such acts , if perpetrated by persons older than CARDINAL , carry a penalty of CARDINAL days’ detention in the LOC of ORG or a fine ( LAW ) .

Under LAW , the penalty of detention in the LOC of ORG must be accompanied by work determined in accordance with the detainee ’s health , age and abilities . That work is not remunerated .

Cases under the Decree fall under the jurisdiction of the district courts ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Until DATE Article CARDINAL provided that the court ’s decision was not subject to appeal . On DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE г. по к. д. № DATE от DATE г. , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE г. ) ORG declared that rule unconstitutional . As a result , in DATE Article CARDINAL was amended and now provides , in paragraph CARDINAL , that the district court ’s decision to impose an administrative penalty may be appealed on points of law before the regional court within TIME . The case must be listed for hearing before the regional court not DATE after the district court ’s decision ( paragraph CARDINAL , as amended ) , and the regional court must rule , by means of a final decision , on DATE it receives the appeal ( paragraph CARDINAL , as amended ) . In the explanatory notes to the amendment bill the ORG referred to , inter alia , the need to bring the LAW into line with the LAW and this ORG ’s caselaw .

Under LAW of LAW DATE , persons serving a custodial sentence following their conviction of a criminal offence were entitled to receive CARDINAL MONEY of the remuneration due for their work .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Execution of Punishments and PreTrial Detention Act DATE , which superseded LAW in DATE , provides that persons serving a custodial sentence following their conviction of a criminal offence are entitled to receive CARDINAL MONEY of the remuneration due for all work carried out by them except voluntary unpaid work and regular shifts to maintain order and hygiene .

ORG are recommendations of ORG to member ORG as to the minimum standards to be applied in prisons . States are encouraged to be guided by those rules in legislation and policies .

The DATE ORG ( Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) DATE “ the DATE Rules ” ) were adopted on CARDINAL DATE .

Rule CARDINAL provides that “ [ t]here shall be a system of equitable remuneration of the work of prisoners ” .

The commentary in the Explanatory memorandum to the Rules says :

“ This rule recognises the importance and value of an adequate and equitable payment system in the context of treatment regimes . No provision to encourage the development of wages systems towards levels that apply for similar work in the community has been made in the rule itself as that would have been premature at this stage . However , a great deal of progress has been made in that respect in a number of countries and that is to be encouraged . ... ”

On DATE ORG adopted a new version of ORG , Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ( “ the CARDINAL Rules ” ) . It noted that the DATE Rules “ needed to be substantively revised and updated in order to reflect the developments which ha[d ] occurred in penal policy , sentencing practice and the overall management of prisons in LOC ” .

Rule CARDINAL provides that “ [ i]n all instances there shall be equitable remuneration of the work of prisoners ” .

The commentary on the CARDINAL Rules ( drawn up by ORG ) says that the level of remuneration of prisoners should be guided by the principle of mirroring conditions for workers on the outside , and that ideally all prisoners should be paid wages that are related to those in society as a whole .


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

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

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG in order to cut CARDINAL of the trees on his land . On DATE the administration rejected his application on the ground that this part of the land was classified as forestland , therefore cutting of the trees therein was prohibited pursuant to the relevant legislation .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG to annul the administration ’s decision .

On DATE the court notified the applicant ’s lawyer in writing that the court charges have not been paid .

On DATE the court further notified the applicant ’s lawyer that the adjudication of the case would be discontinued until the court ’s receipt of the relevant charges pursuant to LAW . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer paid the court charges .

On DATE a new administrative court was established in ORG to adjudicate on the legal claims in GPE and GPE provinces with a view to lightening the case - load of ORG .

On DATE the case was transferred to the newly established ORG which immediately started the proceedings by requesting ORG to submit their observations on the merits of the case .

On DATE ORG submitted their arguments on the merits of the case together with a report on the classification of the location of the applicant ’s land supported by the relevant evidence .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim for annulment of the administration ’s decision .

On DATE the applicant appealed against this judgment before ORG .

On DATE ORG notified the applicant ’s lawyer that the court charges had not been paid and informed him that the adjudication of the case would be discontinued until the court ’s receipt of such payment . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer paid the said charges .

On DATE ORG rejected his appeal against the administrative court ’s judgment .

On DATE the administrative court ’s judgment was communicated to the applicant .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General}

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant published an article under the headline “ The Political Scene in DATE : ORG and ORG ” ( Политические расклады DATE года : старые лица и новые времена ) in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG newspaper . The article examined the interplay of political groups in GPE and , in particular , the part played by the prosecutor 's office of GPE and B. , the Saratov Regional Prosecutor .

B. sued the applicant and the editorial board for defamation before ORG . He claimed that the following extract from the article had damaged his honour , dignity and professional reputation :

“ Probably , only this [ the political union between the town hall and the regional prosecutor 's office ] can account for the regional prosecutor 's office 's perseverance in instigating criminal proceedings against members of the regional government ... , while at the same time shielding the serving officials of the town hall and the town legislature from criminal prosecution . For example , in the corruption - ridden case of the “ ORG ” , charges had been brought against CARDINAL member of the town legislature , Mr K[. ] , but shortly thereafter he was acquitted . And the mayor 's close circle , headed by PERSON A[. ] in person , was spared responsibility . In gratitude for support the town hall started supplying the prosecutor 's offices with ' gifts ' in the form of foreign - made cars and furniture . As to the regional prosecutor PERSON B[. ] , the town hall allocated to him under a CARDINAL lease agreement ( ! ) a plot of land in the courtyard of the block of flats where he lives ( allegedly for development ) . ”

ORG commissioned a linguistic examination of the impugned extract by CARDINAL experts from ORG .

On DATE the panel of CARDINAL experts returned their unanimous findings . In their assessment , the article did not give an appraisal of PERSON 's character , nor did it damage his honour or professional reputation . The publication might create the impression that the prosecutor 's actions had been unseemly and cast doubt on the lawfulness of a lease agreement for such a long term and the validity of its purpose . However , these issues called for a legal rather than a linguistic examination . The experts concurred that the words “ probably ” , “ only this can account for ... ” and “ in gratitude for support ” were expressions of the journalist 's personal opinion rather than statements of fact . The author did not allege that prosecutor PERSON had received any benefits for his support of the town hall . The journalist merely supposed that the prosecutor had not been impartial and that criminal charges against officials had been brought selectively .

On DATE the ORG of Saratov gave judgment , finding against the applicant for the following reasons :

's article ] the plaintiff PERSON can not be viewed as a private individual because in the public perception – having regard to the fact that the plaintiff is a public figure DATE the plaintiff is PERSON , the citizen who holds the office of ORG and must observe higher standards in his personal and professional image and his DATE actions .

The court further considers that the term ' prosecutor 's offices ' employed in the article also referred to the plaintiff because , by virtue of his office , he is responsible for the operation of all the prosecutor 's offices in the entire GPE region .

Having regard to the above , the court considers that the excerpt from the article at issue is nothing but statements ( сведения ) disseminated about the plaintiff that are damaging to his honour , dignity and professional reputation ...

The court does not consider proven the defendants ' argument that they disseminated a journalist 's opinion based on facts , because the author 's opinion must not only be founded on specific statements , but must also not damage the plaintiff 's reputation or honour and must not contain statements about the plaintiff 's unlawful conduct .

Since the purpose of expressing an opinion is to convey it to third parties , the form of its expression must exclude the possibility of misleading a reasonable third party as to whether such information is an opinion or a statement of fact .

The court considers that in the present case the defendants have failed to meet these requirements and the statements contained in the article are statements of fact amenable to proof in judicial proceedings ... ”

ORG noted that the underlying facts in the impugned excerpt were not disputed . Thus , criminal proceedings were indeed brought against certain members of the regional government , including the member of the town legislature PERSON had received a plot of land under the conditions indicated by the applicant , and the NORP town hall had put at the disposal of the prosecutor 's offices , free of charge , a ORG car , CARDINAL tables and CARDINAL filing cabinets .

NORP However , in ORG view , the applicant had failed to show that the mayor 's close circle had been “ spared responsibility ” and that furniture , a foreign - made car or a land plot had been offered “ in gratitude for support ” .

ORG held that the entire extract had been defamatory , ordered the newspaper to publish a rectification , and recovered MONEY each from the applicant and the newspaper .

On DATE the NORP ORG , on an appeal by the applicant , upheld the judgment .

Article CARDINAL guarantees freedom of thought and expression , together with freedom of the mass media .

Article CARDINAL provides that an individual may apply to a court with a request for the rectification of “ statements ” ( сведения ) that are damaging to his or her honour , dignity or professional reputation if the person who disseminated such statements does not prove their truthfulness . The aggrieved person may also claim compensation for losses and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the dissemination of such statements .

The ORG ( in force at the material time ) provided that , in order to be considered damaging , statements ( сведения ) had to be untrue and contain allegations of a breach , by a person or legal entity , of laws or moral principles ( commission of a dishonest act , improper behaviour in the workplace or in everyday life , etc . ) . Dissemination of statements was understood to mean the publication of statements or their broadcasting , inclusion in professional references , public speeches or applications to ORG officials , and communication in other forms , including oral , to CARDINAL other person ( section CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of the ORG governed the distribution of the burden of proof in defamation cases . The plaintiff had to show that the statements had indeed been disseminated by the defendant . The defendant had to prove that the disseminated statements were true and accurate .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

According to the judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG , in TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant , then aged DATE , was invited to a party at the home of Mr GPE There were several young people in the apartment . After some time Mr D.I. , then aged DATE , took the applicant to a separate room and threatened her , after which he raped her . Then he went out and Mr GPE , who was DATE , entered the room . He beat the applicant and attempted to rape her but was interrupted by his mother ringing the doorbell . Mr GPE asked the applicant and the other guests to leave .

The applicant told her parents that she had been raped , and they took her to the doctor and informed the police .

In a medical expert report of DATE experts of ORG established that there was an injury to the applicant ’s hymen and that she had several bruises on her head .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother lodged a written complaint with the police authorities against Mr GPE and Mr D.I.

The police carried out an inquiry , in the course of which it took statements from the applicant , Mr GPE and Mr GPE The CARDINAL suspects gave their addresses .

On DATE the PERSON district prosecutor opened criminal proceedings against Mr GPE and Mr D.I.

NORP On DATE Mr GPE was charged with attempted aggravated rape and was ordered not to leave the town pending the criminal proceedings against him . On DATE the investigator questioned him , the applicant and a witness .

In a letter of DATE the investigator requested the police to establish the full names and addresses of CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE the investigator established that Mr D.I. had not appeared before him , although he had been duly summoned , and that the whereabouts of certain witnesses were unknown . He proposed that the criminal proceedings be stayed . By a decree of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor stayed the criminal proceedings against Mr GPE and Mr GPE , on the ground that the latter ’s whereabouts were unknown .

There is no information as to whether the authorities took any steps to find the persons concerned .

In a report of DATE a police officer stated that Mr D.I. had been found . The address specified in the report was the same as the CARDINAL Mr D.I. had given in his written statement of DATE . In a statement of CARDINAL DATE Mr GPE said that he had not changed his place of residence and that he had never been summoned by the investigator .

On DATE the district prosecutor resumed the criminal proceedings against Mr GPE and Mr D.I.

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the investigator asked the district prosecutor to extend the period of investigation by DATE , stating that the work on the case had not been completed on time because of his involvement in other cases . On DATE the district prosecutor granted a DATE extension .

In a letter of DATE the district prosecutor instructed the investigator to take urgent measures to complete the investigation , informing him that the case would be subject to special monitoring .

On DATE Mr PERSON was charged with aggravated rape and was ordered not to leave the town pending the criminal proceedings against him . On DATE he was questioned before a judge .

In the period DATE and DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL witnesses , and appointed CARDINAL experts to make a psychiatric and psychological assessment of Mr GPE , Mr GPE and the applicant , as well as a medical expert , who , on the basis of the documents in the file , confirmed the conclusions of the medical report of CARDINAL DATE .

The results of the preliminary investigation were communicated to Mr GPE and Mr GPE on DATE .

On DATE the investigator concluded the investigation and referred the file to the district prosecutor with the recommendation that the CARDINAL accused should be put on trial .

In a decree of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings in respect of Mr GPE as time - barred . He found that a shorter prescription period was applicable to him because he had been under age at the time of the offence .

In a decree of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings in respect of Mr GPE , finding that the charges against him had not been proved and that it would be practically impossible to gather any new evidence in view of the period of time which had elapsed since the events .

Following an appeal by the applicant , on DATE the ORG quashed the decree of DATE and resumed the proceedings in respect of Mr T.Z. It found that the district prosecutor should have ordered witness confrontations .

On DATE the district prosecutor referred the case back to the investigator for further examination .

In the period from DATE the investigator carried out CARDINAL witness confrontations .

A second psychiatric and psychological report was submitted in respect of the applicant on DATE . It confirmed that she had been able to understand the events of CARDINAL DATE and that she had not been able to effectively resist the mental and physical violence against her . It was unlikely that the applicant had testified under the influence of her parents .

On DATE the investigator ordered an expert examination of the clothes allegedly worn by the applicant on DATE of the incident , as well as of other items . Several expert reports were prepared in the period from DATE .

On DATE the results of the preliminary investigation were presented to Mr GPE On DATE the investigator concluded the investigation and referred the file to the district prosecutor with the recommendation that Mr PERSON should be tried for attempted rape .

On DATE the district prosecutor once again terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr GPE for lack of direct evidence .

Following an appeal by the applicant , on DATE the PERSON regional public prosecutor ’s office upheld the decree of DATE . The applicant appealed further .

In a decree of DATE the GPE appeals public prosecutor ’s office quashed the decrees of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and referred the case back to the district prosecutor for further investigation . The district prosecutor was ordered to monitor the case and see to the lawful and timely completion of the investigation within DATE . The decision further stated that the applicant ’s account of the events had been corroborated by numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence and that the prescription period for prosecuting Mr PERSON had not expired because there was evidence of complicity between the CARDINAL accused which affected the legal characterisation of the charges .

On DATE the district prosecutor referred the case back to the investigator with instructions to gather additional evidence within DATE . On DATE this deadline was extended by DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor instructed the investigator to send him the file as soon as possible . In a note of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor stated that he had reached an agreement with the investigator that the file would be sent by DATE .

A confrontation between the applicant and Mr GPE was carried out on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was questioned before a judge .

On DATE Mr GPE and Mr GPE were charged with aggravated rape and attempted aggravated rape respectively , committed in complicity , and were ordered not to leave the town pending the criminal proceedings . They were questioned on DATE .

A confrontation between the applicant and Mr GPE was carried out and CARDINAL witnesses were questioned before a judge DATE .

An expert report concerning a tear in the jeans allegedly worn by the applicant on the date of the incident was submitted on DATE .

The results of the preliminary investigation were communicated to Mr GPE and Mr GPE on CARDINAL and DATE respectively .

On DATE the investigator concluded the investigation and referred the file to the district prosecutor with the recommendation that Mr D.I. and Mr PERSON should be tried on the charges .

An indictment against the CARDINAL accused was filed with ORG on DATE .

CARDINAL hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were postponed because CARDINAL of the accused and the lawyer of the other accused had fallen ill .

A hearing was held on DATE . The applicant joined the proceedings as a private prosecutor . She did not bring a civil action .

On DATE and DATE ORG held hearings . The defendants did not plead the statute of limitations but asked the court to pronounce a judgment .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted PERSON D.I. of aggravated rape but relieved him from liability and punishment . It reasoned that although Mr D.I. had not pleaded the statute of limitations , the latter was nevertheless an absolute obstacle to his punishment . It further convicted Mr GPE of attempted aggravated rape and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . It found that the long lapse of time since the rape represented a mitigating factor which must be taken into account in determining his punishment . The court acquitted the CARDINAL accused of the complicity charges .

Upon appeals by the applicant , the district prosecutor and Mr GPE , on DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE in respect of Mr D.I. This part of the judgment was not subject to appeal and became final .

ORG further terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr GPE as time - barred , finding that the prescription period for his prosecution had expired meanwhile .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer was informed of the judgment and of the applicant ’s right to appeal against the termination of the criminal proceedings against Mr GPE The applicant did not appeal .

Pursuant to the DATE LAW , in force at the relevant time and until DATE , as well as the constant case - law of ORG , the courts had to terminate criminal proceedings upon expiry of the statutory period of limitation . Nevertheless , the accused could request their continuation ( Article CARDINAL ) . In such a case , the court could find him guilty but could not punish him ( Article CARDINAL ) .


BREINESBERGER AND WENZELHUEMER v. AUSTRIA

Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by NORP / PERSON , lawyers practising in PERSON .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .

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

The first applicant had been employed by the ORG bank since DATE and became a member of the board of directors ( ORG ) in DATE . The second applicant became a member of the board of directors of the same bank in DATE .

In DATE preliminary investigations ( Vorerhebungen ) were initiated concerning the applicants on suspicion of aggravated fraud . The applicants were taken into pre - trial detention on DATE and were released again on DATE .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor issued a bill of indictment charging the applicants with the offence of aggravated fraud , alleging that from DATE the applicants had failed to repay commissions on loans to customers in CARDINAL cases , had failed to reimburse legal fees by recording them under the headings “ final entry ” or “ loan interest ” in CARDINAL cases and had charged higher interest on overdrafts than had been agreed in CARDINAL cases .

On DATE , and after DATE of hearings held DATE and DATE , ORG , sitting as a court with CARDINAL professional and CARDINAL lay judges ( ORG ) , convicted the applicants of aggravated fraud in respect of the first CARDINAL events , namely failure to repay loan commissions in CARDINAL cases and legal fees in CARDINAL cases , and sentenced each of them to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , DATE of which were suspended with probation . The judgment was delivered in public at the end of the fortieth day of hearings .

On DATE the applicants filed an application for acceleration of the proceedings ( Fristsetzungsantrag ) under section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , requesting that a time - limit be set within which ORG must send them TIME hearing and the written judgment .

The written judgment of CARDINAL pages was served on the applicants’ counsel on DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged an application under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) seeking to extend the time - limit for lodging a plea of nullity and an appeal against the sentence , owing to the complexity of the case . By a decision of DATE ORG granted the application , referring to the complexity and volume of documentation in the case , and extended the time - limit for exercise of the remedies by a further DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged a plea of nullity and an appeal against the sentence .

With a decision dated DATE the time limit for the PERSON public prosecutor to submit observations on the plea of nullity was extended by a further DATE . On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor submitted comments on the plea of nullity . The plea of nullity was transferred to ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG forwarded the file to the Attorney - ORG ( PERSON ) for observations . The Attorney - General ’s Office submitted its comments on DATE , which were served on the applicants on DATE , together with the information that they could lodge their observations on the comments within DATE .

On DATE the applicants made an application seeking to extend the time - limit in which to submit observations on the ORG ’s Office ’s comments by DATE . The application was granted by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicants submitted their comments on the Attorney ORG observations .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE concerning the plea of nullity , served on counsel on CARDINAL DATE , ORG quashed the parts of the conviction that related to CARDINAL counts of alleged fraud regarding the failure to repay commissions on loans to customers , but dismissed the remainder of the plea of nullity as unfounded . However , in accordance with its decision on the CARDINAL counts in question , ORG also quashed the sentence passed by ORG and referred the case back to the first - instance court for a retrial with regard to the CARDINAL counts and for sentencing .

The PERSON public prosecutor subsequently withdrew the bill of indictment in so far as it concerned those CARDINAL counts .

On DATE ORG , to which it only remained to decide on the overall sentence in respect of the applicants , sentenced each of the applicants to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , suspended with probation for DATE . The case was then sent to ORG for determination of the appeal against the sentence .

On DATE ORG partly upheld the public prosecutor ’s appeal and sentenced each of the applicants to twentyfour months’ imprisonment , DATE of which were suspended with probation for DATE .

That judgment was served on the applicants’ counsel on DATE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) at the material time provided that a complainant could submit a plea of nullity , giving reasons , within DATE after service of the written first - instance judgment .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the provision provided at the material time as follows :

“ Where the proceedings are on an extremely large scale the first - instance court shall , if the applicant so requests , extend the time - limit referred to in paragraph CARDINAL by the length of time required DATE particularly in view of the exceptional length of the trial or the exceptional volume of TIME of the proceedings , the remainder of the case file or the written judgment – in order to ensure adequate preparation of the defence ( LAW ( b ) of ORG . CARDINAL , and LAW No . CARDINAL thereto , ORG . DATE ) or of the prosecution of the case . ”


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant , aged CARDINAL , would not become eligible for a State pension until he was CARDINAL , whereas a woman could claim a State pension from DATE . He was currently unemployed but if he returned to work he and any potential employer would be liable to make national insurance contributions .

On DATE , the applicant issued proceedings for damages in ORG against ORG , alleging inter alia that the refusal to pay him a pension from DATE was discriminatory . On DATE , the applicant ’s claim was struck out on the basis that the particulars of claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim ( Civil Procedure Rule CARDINAL . ) . On DATE , permission to appeal was refused .

Section CARDINAL of ORG DATE defines “ pensionable age ” as :

“ ( a ) DATE , in the case of a man ; and

( b ) DATE , in the case of a woman ” .

Section CARDINAL of the Pensions Act DATE provides for the equalisation of State pension ages for men and women to DATE . GPE pension age for women will increase gradually from DATE and the equalisation will be complete in DATE . At the same time , the age until which women are liable to pay national insurance contributions will gradually increase in line with the increase in GPE pension age .

Council Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC of DATE provides for the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security . However , in LAW provides for derogation in the matter of “ the determination of pensionable age for the purposes of granting old - age and retirement pensions and the possible consequences therefore for other benefits ” .

In Case C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL The Queen v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte ORG [ DATE ] ECR CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( “ the ORG case ” concerning a reference for a preliminary ruling from ORG ) , ORG found that :

Article CARDINAL had to be interpreted as authorising the determination of a statutory pensionable age which differs according to sex for the purposes of granting old - age and retirement pensions and also forms of discrimination which are necessarily linked to that difference ;

Inequality between men and women with respect to the length of contribution periods required to obtain a pension constitutes such discrimination where , having regard to the financial equilibrium of the national pension system in the context in which it appears , it can not be dissociated from a difference in pensionable age ;

In view of the advantages allowed to women by national pension systems , in particular as regards statutory pensionable age and length of contribution periods , and the disruption that would necessarily be caused to the equilibrium of those systems if the principle of equality between the sexes were to be applied from DATE to the next in respect of those periods , the ORG legislature intended to authorise the progressive implementation of that principle by the member ORG and that progressive nature could not be ensured if the scope of the derogation authorised by LAW were to be interpreted restrictively .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE ) . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent Mr PERSON , ORG , of ORG .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) convicted the applicant , a recidivist offender , of having driven a motor vehicle without a driving licence and , having regard to his preceding conviction of such offences , it fixed a global sentence of DATE imprisonment . The execution of the sentence was suspended until DATE . The court further ordered that the applicant should not be issued a driving licence before DATE . The applicant ’s appeal was dismissed by ORG ( Landgericht ) on DATE . On DATE the applicant left ORG and moved to the GPE , where he officially took residence in GPE . On DATE he was issued a NORP driving licence . On DATE he moved back to GPE and took residence at his previous address in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was stopped by the police when driving a car . Having only the NORP driving licence , criminal proceedings were commenced against the applicant on the suspicion of having driven a motor vehicle without a valid driving licence . In these proceedings , he was assisted by defence counsel .

By indictment of DATE , ORG ) charged the applicant of having driven a motor vehicle without a valid driving licence . It further requested the competent ORG to seize the car in question as there were strong reasons to assume that it was liable to forfeiture and to consider the question of a resale ( GPE ) .

On DATE ORG issued a warrant to search the applicant ’s LOC and his cars and to seize the applicant ’s car with the registration number PERSON . The court found that there was a strong suspicion that on DATE the applicant had driven this car without a valid driving licence . In this respect the court considered that , following his conviction of driving without licence in DATE , he should not have been issued a new one before DATE . When stopped , he had shown a NORP driving licence , passed in the GPE in DATE . This licence was , according to the court , not valid in GPE as , at the relevant time , though not having been registered in GPE between DATE and DATE , he had in fact been living there . The car was to be seized as object used when committing the offence , liable to forfeiture on account of his recidivism . The measures were carried out on DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that , taking into account the costs of storage and the value of the car , its resale was envisaged . The applicant ’s representative objected on DATE .

On DATE ORG committed the applicant for trial . Subsequently , it ordered an opinion as to the value of the car .

On DATE ORG ordered the sale of the seized car under LAW lit . l ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Strafprozessordnung ) , as the costs of storage by far exceeded its value . In this respect , the court had regard to the opinion of a technical expert according to which the remaining value was CARDINAL , whereas at the relevant time the costs amounted to CARDINAL ORG and were increasing at a DATE rate of DM CARDINAL .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s objection , ORG suspended the resale .

On DATE ORG ( Landgericht ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , confirming the ORG reasoning . It added that in assessing the value of the car , objective criteria were relevant and not the applicant ’s subjective impression .

On DATE the trial opened before ORG . Having heard the applicant , an expert and several witnesses , the competent judge proposed to adjourn the proceedings in order to conduct further investigations . DATE , a decision to stay the proceedings provisionally , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , was issued .

On DATE ORG ordered the seizure of the applicant ’s bank statements to investigate whether he had stayed for a longer period in the GPE and issued checks there .

DATE , the court ordered that the resale of the car be continued , as the suspicion against the applicant had not been dissipated at the hearing of DATE . The applicant ’s assertion that he had repeatedly returned to ORG in order to fetch his mail was not convincing . On CARDINAL DATE the bailiff was instructed to proceed to the resale . Upon the applicant ’s objection , the resale procedure was suspended pending the outcome of these proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . ORG confirmed the reasons advanced by ORG . It also found that the resale could be continued irrespective of the provisional discontinuation of the trial . It considered that the reference to section CARDINAL had been erroneous . Section CARDINAL provided that , upon the prosecutor ’s request , proceedings could be provisionally stayed where the penalty to be expected in the case of a conviction was almost negligible in comparison with a penalty for another offence . However , ORG had not made such a request . Rather , the correct interpretation of the decision at issue was that ORG had adjourned the proceedings sine die for the purpose of further investigations , which it had ordered DATE .

The car was sold on DATE for CARDINAL ORG , paid to the ORG .

On DATE ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) refused to entertain the applicant 's constitutional complaint ( ORG ) .

On DATE , in the context of another set of criminal proceedings pending before ORG , the applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . He was found guilty of , inter alia , several offences in connection with having illegally run a dump for dangerous waste , offences under LAW and CARDINAL counts of driving without licence , committed DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG , referring to the applicant ’s conviction of CARDINAL DATE , requested that the proceedings before ORG be provisionally stayed pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the proceedings were provisionally stayed .

In the meantime , on DATE , the GPE - Bingen ORG ( PERSON ) , having regard to the NORP driving licence obtained in DATE , issued the applicant a NORP driving licence .

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) lit . CARDINAL of FAC ( Strassen - verkehrsgesetz ) , driving a motor vehicle without the requisite licence is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment not exceeding DATE or with a fine . In such cases , the motor vehicle to which the offence relates may be confiscated if the perpetrator drove the vehicle although , inter alia , his driving licence had been withdrawn ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

Driving a motor vehicle with a foreign driving licence is governed by LAW Verordnung über den internationalen GPE ) . According to its paragraph CARDINAL lit . b , a person with a driving licence issued in a Member State of ORG is entitled to drive a motor vehicle in GPE if not permanently resident there . According to paragraph CARDINAL lit . a are excepted from this general rule persons who had their permanent residence in GPE at the time when the foreign licence was issued . Persons have their permanent residence where they effectively live for a period of DATE .

Section CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , as in force at the material time , provided for the confiscation of objects generated by or used or intended for use in the commission of preparation of a criminal offence . Such confiscation was only permissible if , inter alia , the perpetrator owned the object in question ( section ORG ) lit . CARDINAL ) .

According to section CARDINALb of LAW , as in force at the material time , confiscation of an object under , inter alia , section CARDINAL ) ORG should not be ordered if disproportionate to the importance of the offence in question .

Confiscation may also be ordered in cases where , for factual reasons , no specific person can be prosecuted or convicted or where the court discontinues the proceedings under provisions granting the prosecutor ’s office or the court discretion for doing so ( section DATE a of LAW ) .

According to section CARDINAL b , as in force at the material time , objects may be seized pursuant to section CARDINALc , if there are compelling reasons to assume that the conditions for their forfeiture or confiscation are met . Section CARDINAL c provides that the confiscation of movable assets is effected in taking them into public custody or indicating the seizure by seal or in some other way ( section CARDINAL c(CARDINAL ) ) ; that objects so seized may be resold before a final judgment inter alia if the cost of storage is excessively expensive or difficult , the proceeds being substituted for the object in question ( section CARDINAL l ( CARDINAL ) ) .

Section CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the public prosecutor may decide not to prosecute where the penalty to be expected if a conviction is secured is almost negligible in comparison with a penalty imposed on the defendant - or which he must expect to be imposed - for another offence ( section CARDINAL ) ) . Once the proceedings have been instituted , the court may provisionally stay them at any stage on an application by the public prosecutor ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE a company J. ( “ the company ” ) instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) seeking restitution of business premises in the applicant 's possession and payment of rent .

On DATE the applicant filed a counterclaim against the company seeking payment of a certain amount of money on the basis of his investments in the business premises .

NORP The CARDINAL cases were joined .

On DATE ORG decided in the company 's favour . At the same time it dismissed the applicant 's claim as inadmissible because the company had meanwhile gone bankrupt and the applicant failed to report his claim in bankruptcy .

The applicant appealed against that decision . On DATE the High Commercial Court ( ORG trgovački sud PERSON ) upheld the first instance judgment .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for revision on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request on its merits . That decision was not served on the applicant until DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE a new section CARDINAL ( a ) , which subsequently became section CARDINAL of LAW entered into force , introducing a domestic remedy for length of proceedings in form of a constitutional complaint .

In line with the new legislation , on DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) complaining about the length of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint because ORG had meanwhile decided his case .

DATE of the LAW guarantees , inter alia , the right to a court which shall decide on an individual 's rights and obligations within a reasonable time .

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

“ CARDINAL . Everyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that the individual act of a state body , a body of local and regional self - government , or a legal person with public authority , which decided about his or her rights and obligations , or about suspicion or accusation for a criminal act , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms guaranteed by LAW , or his or her right to local and regional self - government guaranteed by LAW ( hereinafter : constitutional right ) ...

If another legal remedy is allowed against the violation of the constitutional rights [ complained of ] , the constitutional complaint may be lodged only after this remedy has been exhausted .

In matters in which an administrative action or , in civil and non - contentious proceedings , a revision on points of law are allowed , remedies are exhausted only after the decision on these legal remedies has been given . ”

The relevant part of CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :

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

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

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 part of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) in the relevant part reads as follows :

ORG provides that a request for revision on points of law may be filed against the second instance judgment within DATE following its service on the party . It also enumerates cases in which such a request is allowed .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that ORG , in case it finds a request for revision on points of law well - founded , may quash the second instance judgment and remit the case or , in certain cases , it may also reverse the second instance judgment .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation);Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant lives in the village of GPE and the second and third applicants live in the village of GPE , GPE district , in GPE . The first applicant is a brother of PERSON , the second applicant is a brother of Mr PERSON and the third applicant is the mother of Mr Nokha LANGUAGE .

The facts of the case are partially disputed by the parties . The principal discrepancies may be summarised as follows .

DATE and DATE military unit no . DATE was stationed near GPE , a village of CARDINAL residents .

According to the applicants , the military unit occupied land used by the residents for tillage and pasture , and soldiers mined the area around the unit and in the adjacent parts of the communal forest using anti - personnel mines and , specifically , mines with a trip wire .

According to the Government , the mines in the forest were planted by illegal armed gangs .

NORP In statements submitted by the applicants , the head of the local administration and other residents alleged that there had been several incidents since DATE in which cattle and people had been injured by mines . The head of the administration stated that he had asked the military to remove the mines from the land used by the villagers but that the incidents had continued .

According to the Government , the population of GPE was regularly warned by the military that mines had been laid by armed gangs in the forest . They said that the minefield around the military unit was marked .

On DATE at TIME the first applicant ’s brother , PERSON Vakhazhi Albekov , born in DATE , went to the meadow to collect the family ’s cattle from a field situated QUANTITY from the village . He was wearing a black jacket with a hood , a black sweater , blue sports trousers and black rubber boots . At TIME another villager , PERSON , met PERSON in the meadow and the latter told him that he was going north to collect the calves . As a rule it took very little time to collect the cattle and return , and at TIME his family became concerned .

At about the same time another resident of the village , Mr M. , was in the southern part of the pasture and heard an explosion somewhere to the north . He was scared and decided to return home along the road . On the road he was fired at by soldiers returning to the military unit , but escaped unharmed .

After TIME Mr Vakhazhi Albekov ’s relatives and neighbours decided to search for him . They broke up into small groups and searched the pasture land and a short way into the forest , shouting his name . At QUANTITY they decided to report his disappearance to the military unit and ask for assistance . The first applicant ’s sister , along with the head of the village administration , PERSON , and CARDINAL other neighbours , went to the location of the military unit . Only Mr E. was allowed to enter and a serviceman informed him that they had no news of Mr Albekov and that they had not detained anyone .

On TIME on DATE Mr E. went to the district centre of GPE and reported Mr. PERSON ’s disappearance to the district authorities , namely the police station , the military commander and the head of the administration .

At the same time villagers continued to search for Mr Vakhazhi Albekov in the pasture land and forest . At TIME the second applicant and PERSON PERSON found Mr PERSON ’s body in a pit in the forest , QUANTITY from the road and QUANTITY from the military unit . The body was lying face down , and the upper part of the body had been disfigured by an explosion . The CARDINAL men noticed the remains of tape on the body and recognised the clothes he had been wearing . Nearby they found his passport , which was intact . They also noted footprints on the ground , allegedly made by military boots , leading towards the military unit . They did not touch the body as they were afraid that it was mined .

At TIME on DATE the first applicant ’s brother , PERSON , and another villager went to the military unit with a request for sappers who could check if the body had been mined . The military refused and suggested that they should seek help in GPE . While waiting at the barrier of the military unit for an answer , PERSON heard an explosion from the north - eastern part of the forest . Later they learnt that this was an explosion , which had injured Mr NORP and Mr PERSON .

After the refusal by the military to help retrieve Mr Albekov ’s body , the residents decided to recover it themselves . They tied a long rope to CARDINAL of his legs and pulled the body from a distance of QUANTITY . Mr Vakhazhi Albekov was buried on DATE in the village cemetery . His relatives did not seek medical or other professional examination of the body before burial .

NORP The villagers searching for Mr Vakhazhi Albekov on DATE divided up into several small groups . At TIME one such group , consisting of Mr PERSON , born in DATE , the second applicant ’s brother , and PERSON , were blown up by a booby - trap mine in the forest . The sound of that explosion was heard by PERSON , who was at the gate of the military unit .

Mr I. , who was injured on the right side of his body and in both legs , managed to reach a roadblock near the village of ORG , which is QUANTITY from GPE . The soldiers stopped a passing car , and the driver , who happened to be a resident of GPE , took Mr I. home . PERSON told the other villagers that they had been blown up by a mine and that PERSON had been seriously injured in the same blast and had lost a leg . The head of the local administration again appealed to the military unit , asking them for sappers and for medical assistance . The military refused to send sappers , but a military doctor attended PERSON at his home at TIME and gave him first aid . He did not issue any medical documents in respect of PERSON injuries .

When the residents of the village were informed by PERSON that PERSON PERSON was seriously injured , they immediately went to look for him . They again broke up into small groups and entered the forest . CARDINAL of Mr PERSON cousins , namely PERSON , born in DATE , the third applicant ’s son , and PERSON , volunteered to check the most dangerous sites , such as ravines , pits and abandoned dugouts . While checking a dugout in the north - eastern part of the forest , Mr Nokha NORP was blown up by a mine . Mr Sh . PERSON rushed to his aid and was also blown up . As a result each received serious injuries to their right legs , which were later amputated in hospital . CARDINAL of Mr Nokha Uspanov ’s fingers were also seriously injured and later had to be amputated . His left leg was fractured . Other residents brought the men to the village , where they were attended to by the first applicant .

On TIME Mr Nokha Uspanov and Mr Sh . PERSON were taken by their relatives to a hospital in GPE , where they were operated on DATE . Mr NORP ’s right leg was amputated at shin level and CARDINAL fingers on his right hand were also amputated ; PERSON ’s right leg was amputated at ankle level . They remained in hospital until DATE .

On TIME the head of the village administration , together with residents of GPE and ORG , again went to the military unit and asked for sappers in order to find Mr PERSON and to prevent further casualties . This time the commander of the military unit ordered an armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) and CARDINAL sappers to assist the villagers . The sappers had a map of the area , presumably indicating minefields . They used it to reach the body of Mr PERSON , who had died in the meantime . His left leg had been torn away by the blast and he had other injuries . The body was brought to his home in GPE with the help of the military . He was buried on DATE in the village cemetery . His relatives did not contact any medical personnel or authorities before the burial .

According to the applicants , on DATE a group of officials arrived at GPE . They included individuals from the GPE district police , the military commander ’s office and the prosecutor ’s office . Accompanied by local residents , they filmed the site where PERSON Vakhazhi Albekov ’s body had been found . They also visited Mr PERSON ’s home , where they took photographs and filmed the body . They also questioned a number of witnesses who had participated in the search and retrieval of the body . The officers drew up a report on Mr Vakhazhi Albekov ’s sweater and an axe he had been carrying to protect himself in case of attack by wild animals . None of the witnesses recalled signing any papers or statements .

The officers assured the first applicant that a criminal investigation would be conducted into the circumstances of the deaths . They gave him the name of the prosecutor responsible for the case in the district prosecutor ’s office . After his brother ’s funeral , the first applicant , who worked in ORG , tried to meet the prosecutor on CARDINAL occasions but was denied access to the building on each occasion on the ground that the prosecutor was absent .

The first applicant ’s sister , PERSON , also tried at some stage to inquire about the investigation into her brother ’s death . She submitted that a prosecutor had shouted at her and turned her out of his office . The first applicant ’s family made no further attempts to inquire about the investigation .

On DATE an official from military unit no . CARDINAL issued a certificate to Mr Nokha Uspanov , confirming that he had received a blast injury while looking for cattle near the village of GPE .

On DATE the head of the village administration issued a note which contained the following account of the events of CARDINAL DATE :

“ At TIME on DATE a resident of GPE , ORG , born in DATE , went to look for his cattle and did not return . The whole village went out to look for him . By TIME the search had produced no results and we applied to the headquarters of the federal forces , who denied any knowledge of him . The following day in the morning we applied to them again , because the pasture land and surrounding forest are mined . By TIME on DATE we were told that PERSON had been found dead at the edge of the village , blown up by a ORG block . On DATE we notified the district police authorities , who came and started a criminal investigation .

PERSON , born in DATE , who went to search for PERSON on DATE , did not come back to the village . Another man who was with him , [ I. ] , informed the villagers that [ PERSON ] was seriously wounded ; meanwhile [ I. ] , also seriously wounded , reached the road near the village of ORG , from where he was brought back by another resident .

Another group of villagers went to look for PERSON , knowing that he had been seriously injured and needed help . Nokha NORP and [ Sh . M. ] went by a separate path , hoping to be the first [ ones ] to reach him . They stated later that first Nokha LANGUAGE was blown up by a mine , and then [ Sh . M. ] , trying to reach him . Another group took them home , where they were given first aid by the village doctor .

For the third time I asked the federal forces for help , but at the roadblock they told me that they could not send sappers and reconnaissance groups , as they were busy . On DATE I asked them again , and finally they provided an ORG and a group of sappers , who found PERSON already dead and brought his body home . ”

According to the second applicant , he was not questioned by any investigators about the circumstances of his brother ’s death . However , in DATE , during a “ sweeping ” operation in GPE , he and several other men from the village , including Mr Nokha Uspanov , were detained by NORP soldiers , beaten up and questioned about the circumstances of his brother ’s death . The second applicant was also asked if he had complained anywhere about the incident , and replied in the negative . He was released DATE , and was too scared to apply to any other officials .

The third applicant submitted that her son , Mr Nokha LANGUAGE , had remained in hospital for DATE after the injury sustained on DATE . His right leg was operated on twice , because his wound had become infected after the first amputation . After being discharged from hospital her son remained at home , suffering from severe pain and requiring constant care for DATE . On DATE Mr Nokha LANGUAGE , along with a few other men from the village , was detained by soldiers during a “ sweeping ” operation . The applicant had no news of her son for DATE , despite having personally visited the military commander ’s office , the local administration and other authorities . At DATE her son ’s body was discovered on the outskirts of the village of ORG . The third applicant submitted that her other son , PERSON , born in DATE , had been killed in DATE . She further submitted that after DATE she had not applied to any authorities in relation to the events of DATE , because she had been afraid and had not trusted any officials .

On DATE the NORP district civil registry office issued death certificate no . CARDINAL in respect of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov , stating that he had died in GPE on DATE .

According to the Government , until DATE no applications for institution of criminal proceedings were submitted by relatives of the deceased persons to the prosecutor ’s offices of GPE . After the receipt on DATE of unspecified materials concerning the explosions , ORG conducted an inspection . On DATE , having regard to the results of the inspection , the district prosecutor ’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no indication that a crime had been committed .

On DATE a lawyer from ORG wrote to ORG and asked for an update on the criminal investigation into the death of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov . No reply was received . In DATE the head of the village administration was visited by various officers from the district police station . He was questioned about the circumstances of the events of DATE , but was not asked to sign any papers .

The Government submitted the following information on the subsequent progress of the investigation .

On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE , refusing to institute criminal proceedings , was quashed by the district prosecutor . However , on DATE , following the results of an additional inspection , another decision was given refusing the institution of criminal proceedings .

On DATE the Prosecutor ’s Office of GPE quashed the decision of DATE refusing the institution of criminal proceedings . On the same date criminal investigation no . DATE was instituted into the death of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov . On DATE criminal investigation no . CARDINAL was instituted into the death of Mr PERSON and the injuries sustained by PERSON Nokha Uspanov , PERSON and Mr NORP ORG was responsible for the investigations .

On DATE an inspection of the crime scene was carried out . In the course of the inspection an unspecified metal fragment was seized . It was later examined with unspecified explosives . In addition , at the prosecutor ’s request , ORG ordered the exhumation of the corpses of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov , Mr PERSON and Mr Nokha Uspanov . However , that order could not be enforced because the relatives of the deceased persons objected to the exhumation . A forensic examination was then conducted on the basis of the medical documents available . According to the results of the examination , the injuries sustained by Mr Nokha NORP and PERSON were described as serious .

On DATE PERSON . A. , the sister of PERSON , was granted the status of victim in the criminal proceedings and questioned . She confirmed that on DATE her brother had gone to the meadow to collect the cattle from the field and had been killed by an explosion not far from the village . In the course of the search for him other villagers had been injured in similar circumstances . PERSON submitted that neither she nor her relatives had lodged any complaints with the law - enforcement bodies in connection with the events and she did not consider her rights to have been breached .

Also on DATE the father of Mr Nokha Uspanov and the brother of PERSON were granted the status of victims in the criminal proceedings . Mr NORP ’s father stated that on DATE his son had gone to search for Mr Vakhazhi Albekov and had been injured by an explosive device . He had not filed any complaints with the law - enforcement agencies in this respect . Mr PERSON , PERSON brother , stated that the military unit stationed near the village had provided transport and sappers who had found Mr PERSON and had brought his body to the village of PERSON . The villagers then had taken his body to GPE and had buried him on DATE . Neither Mr PERSON nor his relatives had filed any complaints with the law - enforcement agencies in connection with the incidents .

Mr PERSON , Mr Nokha Uspanov ’s cousin who was questioned on the same date , submitted that in DATE Mr LOC had disappeared after going to collect cattle . His body had been found in a dugout in the forest . His body had been lying face down and there had been a wound on his right side . There had been no injuries on other parts of the body . Later he had learned that Mr PERSON , Mr Nokha NORP and Mr M. Sh . had also been blown up by mines .

The third applicant , who was questioned on DATE , submitted that in DATE her son , Mr Nokha LANGUAGE , had gone to search for Mr Vakhazhi Albekov . He had returned home to have lunch and then had gone out again . Later her brother - in - law had come to tell her that Mr Nokha Uspanov and PERSON had been injured . They had stayed in the NORP hospital for DATE and then had continued treatment at home . Mr Nokha Uspanov had never told her what exactly had happened to him and Mr Sh . PERSON ; however , she knew that they had been blown up by a mine while searching for PERSON . Neither she nor her husband had applied to police , or to the prosecuting or other authorities in this respect .

PERSON , another sister of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov , was questioned on the same date .

On DATE Mr PERSON cousin , PERSON , was granted the status of victim in the criminal proceedings and questioned . He submitted that in DATE he came from PERSON to visit his parents in GPE . On his arrival he had learned that his cousin PERSON had had been blown up by a mine earlier that day . In TIME that day servicemen from the military unit located next to the village brought PERSON body in an ORG .

On DATE Mr T. , head of the village administration , was questioned . He submitted that in DATE some young men from the area , under the command of a certain PERSON from the ORG district , had obtained weapons and set up watch at the village ’s entrance . He did not know what exactly they had been doing . According to rumours , PERSON had been under the command of PERSON . PERSON had also passed through the village with his brigade of CARDINAL men . They had stayed in GPE for a while . Sometimes convoys with military vehicles from the federal troops had passed through the villages . However , the federal troops had never stayed in the village . DATE a lot of cattle had died on account of the explosives , which could have been planted by members of illegal armed gangs headed by PERSON or PERSON . Since DATE a military unit , “ the fifteenth regiment ” as it was called by the servicemen , was located near the village . In the course of time the servicemen and the villagers established good relations . The military doctor provided medical assistance to the villagers , and the servicemen assisted them with transportation and other matters .

With regard to the explosions of DATE , Mr T. submitted that he had been permanently resident in PERSON at that time . However , he had heard about the events from the villagers . After being appointed head of the LOC administration in DATE , he had met with the commanders of the military unit located within QUANTITY of the village . The commanders had told him that they had information concerning the minefields set up by rebel fighters in that district and had asked him to tell the villages not to walk there . The sites in question had been marked with notices containing warnings about the mines . Furthermore , the commanders had warned him that there could be mines laid by rebel fighters near the village ; however , they had not known their precise location , since the rebel fighters had planted them up chaotically . In DATE servicemen from the unit had been blown up on such mines themselves and had been badly injured .

On DATE PERSON , the village ’s imam , was questioned . He submitted that in DATE he had washed the dead bodies of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov and Mr PERSON . He had not participated in the search for Mr Vakhazhi Albekov . However , when his body had been found , his relatives had invited Mr L. for ablution , which he had performed on DATE at TIME He had observed the following injuries on Mr Vakhazhi Albekov ’s body : the left side of the chest and the front abdominal walls had been missing , apparently as a result of an explosion , and internal organs had been visible through the opening . The edges of the opening had been burnt and uneven and smelled of explosives . The hands had been seriously injured . A hand ( he could not remember which ) and the left leg had been almost torn apart , and had remained attached to the body only by the skin and remains of the muscles . There had been blood on Mr Vakhazhi Albekov ’s head , which had been washed off . He had not seen any bullet wounds . Mr Vakhazhi Albekov had been buried in the village cemetery .

Mr L. did know the exact place where Mr PERSON was blown up . From PERSON he had learned that PERSON had participated in the search for Mr Vakhazhi Albekov and had stepped on a mine . Mr I. had shown the place of the explosion to the servicemen who brought Mr PERSON body to the village . He and PERSON performed the ablution . Mr L. had observed the following injuries on his body : traumatic amputation up to the knee of a leg ( he could not remember which one ) , and minor wounds on other parts of the body . It had been obvious that PERSON PERSON death had been the result of the traumatic amputation of the leg , pain , shock and blood loss . Mr PERSON had been buried in the village cemetery on DATE .

Mr L. had learned about the injuries sustained by Mr Nokha NORP and PERSON from the villagers . He had not talked to them personally and therefore did not know any details of the explosions .

On DATE PERSON , the village imam ’s assistant , was questioned . He submitted that since DATE rebel fighters had repeatedly passed through the village . They had used different vehicles and weapons . Federal troops had never permanently stayed in the village or its vicinity . In DATE rebel fighters had passed through their village in motor vehicles . TIME in DATE somebody told him that the whole village had gone to search for PERSON . Then he heard that his body had been found , and he had gone to the spot together with other villagers . Within QUANTITY of the village they reached a dugout , surrounded by villagers . He had never seen this dugout before . It was a log - covered pit in the ground . The entrance to the dugout had no stairs . Having consulted the villagers , he concluded that the dugout had been left by rebel fighters , since it did not resemble the buildings usually left by the federal troops . He had looked into the dugout and had seen a corpse . Mr ORG relatives who were present said that they recognised him by his clothes . PERSON had not entered the dugout . He had said that the body could have been mined and asked for a long rope . Then someone attached the rope to a leg . Everybody had stepped back for QUANTITY so as to avoid the consequences of a possible explosion , and had pulled the body out . PERSON had put a blanket on the ground and had placed the body on the blanket . There had been no skin or muscles on the left side of the body . There had been no other injuries . Then Mr Vakhazhi Albekov ’s relatives had taken his body home . During the ablution PERSON had not seen any gunshot wounds on Mr Vakhazhi Albekov ’s body .

Mr PERSON further submitted that Mr I. and Mr PERSON had been blown up by a mine while searching for Mr Vakhazhi Albekov to the north - east of the village . Mr PERSON had died and PERSON had only been frightened . PERSON had been invited to Mr PERSON ablution . His body had smelled of burnt meat . He had taken the clothes from the body and had laid them out on the table . In the process of ablution he had observed the following injuries : the left leg had been injured , the left foot had been smashed and had no toes , and its lower part was missing . In the inguinal region there was a hole of QUANTITY in diameter . The buttocks were scratched . There had had been no injuries on other parts of the body . Later Mr PERSON father had objected to having his son ’s dead body examined and photographed . On DATE Mr Nokha Uspanov and Mr PERSON . had also been blown up on a mine . Each of them had a leg torn off . They had both survived and walked with crutches . He had not talked to them and did not know any details of the explosion .

On an unspecified date several residents of the village of GPE and other witnesses were questioned . In particular , Mr D. submitted that in DATE an armed group , under the command of PERSON , had conducted military actions in the whole mountain district and had stayed in GPE . Their headquarters had been in the school . The rebel GPE dugout had been placed in the forest between the villages of ORG and GPE . NORP troops had never stayed there permanently ; their convoys had merely passed through the village sometimes . DATE cattle had been regularly blown up on mines around the village , including the sites of the rebel ORG dugouts . All the villagers had been aware that there were mines in the forest . He did not know who had laid them . However , judging from the fact that in DATE rebel fighters rather than NORP troops had stayed in the forest , it was more likely that the former had mined the land so as to prevent attacks from the federal forces . Mr NORP described the circumstances of the explosions in which Mr Vakhazhi Albekov , Mr PERSON and Mr Nokha Uspanov had been killed and injured as he had learned them from other villagers . He considered it unlikely that Mr Vakhazhi Albekov had been intentionally killed and considered it most probable that he had been blown up accidentally on a mine .

Mr S. submitted that military actions between members of illegal armed groups and the federal forces had been conducted in LOC until DATE . At the time CARDINAL members of illegal armed groups had been present in the district . In the forest , QUANTITY to the north of GPE , there were dugouts from the camp of the former field commander PERSON . He and other villagers had known that , when leaving the district , the rebel fighters had mined their camps so as to annihilate any servicemen of the federal troops who might come to inspect the place . Near the military unit there were notices stating that the land had been mined . He did not have any precise information concerning the deaths of the villagers . It is not clear who PERSON was .

Mr PERSON submitted that in DATE there had been numerous instances of explosions in the forest . However , he did not have any information concerning the events in GPE . It is not clear who Mr PERSON was .

Mr GPE . made a statement similar to that of Mr PERSON It is not clear who Mr GPE . was .

Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON made statements similar to that of PERSON , the village imam ’s assistant . It is not clear who PERSON and PERSON were .

Mr GPE . and Mr O. did not have any information concerning the events in question . It is not clear who they were .

Mr M. , who was questioned on an unspecified date , submitted that since DATE he had been working as a medical assistant at the medical station in GPE . In DATE rebel fighters , in particular , CARDINAL of PERSON groups , had stayed in the village . The federal troops had not stayed in the village . Their convoys had sometimes passed by but had not stopped . He knew that DATE a lot of cows had been blown up on mines around the village .

Mr M. had seen Mr I. after he had been blown up but he had not noticed any injuries . Mr I. had told him that he and Mr PERSON had been searching for Mr Vakhazhi Albekov and that PERSON had been blown up on a mine . On DATE the villagers and servicemen from the CARDINALth regiment had gone to search for Mr PERSON , and later the servicemen had brought his dead body to the village . Mr Nokha NORP and PERSON had been among the villagers that had participated in the search and they had both been blown up on mines . Other villagers had brought them on stretchers to the house of the S - vs . family on the outskirts of the village . Somebody had called PERSON and the first applicant , who was in the village DATE , for medical assistance . The villagers had told PERSON and the first applicant that they had gone with Mr Nokha NORP and Mr Sh . PERSON to search for Mr PERSON . In the forest Mr Sh . PERSON had noticed a dugout and had approached it in order to look inside . At the entrance of the dugout he had been blown up . Mr Nokha Uspanov had run over to help him and had been blown up too . In the S - vs.’ house PERSON and the first applicant had provided the CARDINAL men with the first medical aid . They had been given styptic and anti - tetanus injections ; the first applicant had cleansed the wounds and removed the injured parts of the muscles and skin . PERSON M.’ right leg had been torn off up to the middle of the ankle . PERSON did not remember him having other injuries . Mr Nokha Uspanov had a similar injury . PERSON had not seen the bodies of either Mr Vakhazhi Albekov or PERSON .

Mr R - v . , who was questioned on an unspecified date , submitted that from DATE he had been seconded to military unit no . DATE . In DATE the military unit had been located on the outskirts of GPE . At the time the situation in the village had been tense ; members of illegal armed groups had opened fire on several occasions . The military unit had not mined the area . In the forest near the military unit ’s location there had been a lot of mines , including trip - wire mines . There had been instances where servicemen or military vehicles had been blown up . The mines had most probably been laid by members of illegal armed groups . When explosive devices had been found by servicemen of the military unit , they had been destroyed on the spot by sappers . The administration of GPE had always been informed of the discovery of explosive devices .

Other unspecified servicemen from military unit no . DATE , questioned on unspecified dates , also submitted that the military unit had not laid any mines while located in LOC . When mines or other explosive devices were found , they had been destroyed by sappers . The command of military unit no . DATE had always informed the residents and the administration of GPE of the discovery of mines .

According to the Government , it had not been possible to question either Mr Nokha NORP , because of his subsequent death , or PERSON , because he had moved to GPE permanently , although ORG of GPE had requested the NORP authorities to take certain investigative measures in respect of PERSON Nor had it been possible to question Mr PERSON . , as he and his relatives had left GPE . However , certain steps to establish his whereabouts had been taken .

The investigative authorities had requested the competent bodies to provide information concerning the laying of mines near the village of GPE . According to the military commander ’s office , there was no information to support the assumption that the mines had been laid by the federal forces . The involvement of representatives of the federal forces in the incident was therefore not established . Mr Vakhazhi Albekov had been blown up on land occupied by the military unit and which had previously been “ abandoned by members of illegal armed formations ” . Mr PERSON , Mr Nokha NORP , PERSON and PERSON had been blown up while they had been searching for Mr PERSON in the forest where members of illegal armed gangs had laid mines .

The investigation was being conducted under the supervision of ORG and the persons granted the status of victim were being informed of all the decisions taken .

Despite specific requests made by ORG on several occasions , the Government did not submit copies of the investigation files concerning the deaths of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov and Mr PERSON and the injuries sustained by Mr Nokha Uspanov , except for CARDINAL pages of documents containing decisions to open , suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status . The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW of LAW .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW safeguards the right to life . GPE is not a party to the DATE Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use , Stockpiling , Production and Transfer of Anti - Personnel Mines and on their Destruction .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR . On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( the new ORG ) .

DATE . Article CARDINAL of the new ORG provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court .

Article CARDINAL of the new ORG stipulates that evidence from the preliminary investigation may not be disclosed . Part CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator , but only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission .


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON who was granted leave to represent the applicant by the President of ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant became a civil servant employed by ORG ( ORG , ORG ; henceforth “ the GPE ” ) where he worked until his retirement on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the Trustees of the ORG ( pankkivaltuusto , bankfullmäktige ) introduced an equal retirement DATE for all men and women who entered the service of ORG that date or later . The retirement age for women was thereby raised from DATE to DATE while for men the retirement age remained unchanged . As the rule was not retroactive , the different retirement ages for men and women still applied to those persons who had started employment before DATE .

On DATE the Trustees of the ORG ( pankkivaltuusto , bankfullmäktige ) amended the pension rules of the ORG so that men who had joined the ORG prior to CARDINAL DATE and who continued their employment until retirement were also granted an opportunity to lower their retirement age from DATE . For DATE the retirement age was lowered , and the pension accrued prior to DATE was reduced by PERCENT . At its highest the early retirement reduction was PERCENT for DATE . Under the pension rules of CARDINAL DATE the retirement age for women who had joined the ORG prior to CARDINAL DATE was DATE and no reductions applied to pension accrual .

Since DATE the pension rules of the ORG had provided that a civil servant who applied for early retirement , who had been employed by the ORG prior to CARDINAL DATE and who had DATE of service behind him , had a right to a pension guarantee ( takuueläke , garantipension ) which was PERCENT of the salary . This pension guarantee was increased by PERCENT for DATE the person ’s personal retirement age ( henkilökohtainen eläkeikä , individuell pensionsålder ) , which was DATE for men and DATE for women , fell short of DATE ( the personal retirement age before DATE ) . This guarantee was significantly reduced as from DATE .

On DATE the applicant was granted a pension , which was calculated with a PERCENT pension guarantee which included the increase of PERCENT as his personal retirement age was DATE . This method of calculation was chosen as it was more beneficial to the applicant than the method by which the pension was reduced by PERCENT , or MONEY ( ORG ) per month , on the ground that he had retired at DATE . The pension so calculated amounted to ORG CARDINAL per month , starting from DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a letter of appeal to the ORG , requesting that his pension be recalculated so that DATE would bring him an additional pension of PERCENT per year , thus altogether PERCENT . He claimed that the amendments made to the pension guarantee on DATE had led to discrimination between men and women due to the fact that the theoretical personal retirement age for men was DATE , even if they retired earlier , whereas for women it was always DATE . In the applicant ’s situation the percentage for accrued pension was PERCENT while for a woman in the same situation it would be PERCENT higher , namely PERCENT . He also complained about the fact that his pension had been reduced by PERCENT , or ORG DATE , on the ground that he had retired at DATE . As the ORG could not rectify the pension decision , it referred the case on appeal to ORG ) .

On DATE ORG partly accepted , partly rejected the applicant ’s appeal . As concerned the percentage for accrued pension , the court accepted the applicant ’s appeal and ordered that the percentage be PERCENT instead of PERCENT . It found that in this respect the pension was not calculated in an equitable manner with regard to men and women , and that women were placed in a more favourable position than men . The applicant ’s personal retirement age should also have been DATE , as was the case for women in the same position . As this inequality affected also the time after DATE , the date on which the ORG rules on equal pay became applicable in respect of GPE , the applicant ’s pension had been calculated in a manner contrary to ORG law during the period from DATE until DATE . In this respect the case was referred back to the ORG for a new decision . As to the rest of the applicant ’s complaints , they were rejected . As concerned the reduction of PERCENT due to early retirement , the court found that as the reduction concerned the time before DATE , it was not contrary to ORG law .

On DATE the ORG issued a new pension decision to the applicant . The percentage for accrued pension was now PERCENT , increasing his personal pension guarantee percentage to PERCENT . The pension calculated in this manner amounted thus to ORG CARDINAL per month .

NORP By letter dated CARDINAL September CARDINAL the applicant submitted an appeal to the ORG , requesting that the pension decision of DATE be recalculated as his pension guarantee still remained at PERCENT when it should have been CARDINAL x PERCENT = PERCENT on the ground that he had over DATE of service . He noted that ORG had already on DATE amended a similar pension decision in the case of PERSON and granted him a pension right amounting to PERCENT on the ground that he had fulfilled the pension guarantee requirement as he had completed DATE of service . Moreover , the applicant complained about the amendment to ORG on DATE which introduced the reduction system in cases of early retirement . He claimed that it was discriminatory and unconstitutional and that therefore it should be declared null and void or at least left unapplied . Such practice was not in use in the ORG pension system and under LAW ( valtion eläkelaki , lagen om statens pensioner ) , which LAW were intended to follow . The applicant also pointed out that ORG had also found in this respect that the NORP system was contrary to ORG law . Finally , the applicant complained about lack of transparency in the ORG ’s decision .

As the ORG could not rectify the pension decision , it referred the case on appeal to ORG on DATE . These proceedings are still pending before ORG .

DATE ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that :

“ No one shall , without an acceptable reason , be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex , age , origin , language , religion , conviction , opinion , health , disability or other reason that concerns his or her person . ”

DATE LAW provides that the property of everyone is protected .

Section CARDINAL of the Act on Equality between Women and Men ( laki naisten ja miesten välisestä tasa - arvosta , lagen om jämställdhet mellan kvinnor och män ; Act no . DATE ) prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination based on gender . According to its section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , direct discrimination means , inter alia , putting women or men in an unequal position on the basis of gender . LAW , subsection CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , of the same LAW provides that :

“ An employer ’s conduct constitutes discrimination prohibited under LAW if the employer applies the pay or other terms of employment in such a way that CARDINAL or more employees , because of their gender , find themselves in a less favourable position than CARDINAL or more other employees performing the same work or work of equal value in the employer ’s service . ”

Section CARDINAL of the LAW on ORG ( laki PERSON , lagen om ORG ; Act no . CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that :

“ The Trustees of the ORG shall confirm ORG and issue regulations concerning the management of the ORG ’s pension liability , upon proposal of the ORG . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Act on Officials of ORG ( laki PERSON virkamiehistä , lagen om ORG tjänstemän ; Act no . DATE ) provides the following :

“ ORG shall treat all officials in its service equally to ensure that no - one is unjustifiably treated differently because of his origin , citizenship , gender , religion , age , political or union activities , or on other comparable bases .

ORG shall not forbid an official to join or belong to an association or pressure him to join a particular association , nor forbid him to resign from such . ”

Section CARDINAL , subsections CARDINAL , of the same LAW provide the following :

“ An official who considers that ORG has not rendered him the financial benefit due to him from his employment relationship may submit a written request for rectification to ORG . No request for rectification can be made in a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of ORG , unless ORG has decided not to settle the matter under section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW on ORG ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Rectification of a decision by which ORG has issued an official with a warning , laid him off or given him notice , cancelled the service relationship , suspended him from office or decided on a matter concerning his pension contribution or secondary occupation , as well as a decision referred to in paragraph CARDINAL on a request for rectification referred to in paragraph CARDINAL can be requested by appealing to ORG in accordance with the provisions of ORG ( ORG ) . A matter referred to in this paragraph shall be treated as urgent by ORG .

Decisions of the ORG concerning pensions can be appealed against to ORG . Otherwise , as regards a request for rectification on pension , the applicable provisions of the Act on State Pensions ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) shall apply . ”

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the same LAW provides that

“ [ t]he right of an employee of ORG to a pension paid from the ORG ’s funds is determined , to the extent applicable , on the same grounds as state pension cover . State pension cover refers to the right to pensions , survivors’ pensions and other benefits which are payable from the state ’s funds and the content of and eligibility for which are regulated by LAW and the related legislation . Pensions and survivors’ pensions are granted by ORG . ”

More detailed provisions on the payment of pensions and survivors’ pensions and pension cover in other respects are contained in ORG ( Suomen Pankin eläke- ja perhe - eläkesäännöt ; pensionsstadgan och familjepensionsstadgan för ORG ) . The Trustees of ORG , elected by the ORG , adopt the ORG on the basis of ORG proposals .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW with its earlier wording , as amended on DATE , read as follows :

“ Eligibility for old age pension requires that the beneficiary has completed his or her service and reached DATE , or DATE if the beneficiary , immediately before retirement , has been serving ORG or its ORG for DATE , and DATE in the case of a female employee . A beneficiary who retires as a member of the ORG is entitled to old age pension irrespective of age . ”

The lower retirement DATE for women was applied until DATE , when the amendment of section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of ORG entered into force . With this amendment the retirement age for women was raised from DATE but the retirement age for men remained unchanged at DATE . The amendment took effect as from its date of adoption so that it was applicable to beneficiaries whose service relationship with the ORG began on DATE or thereafter .

For the equalisation of the retirement ages , men were granted the right to opt for a lower retirement age . On DATE the Trustees of the ORG amended the entry into force provision of LAW in the following manner :

“ However , as of DATE , the earlier provision is applicable both to women who entered service in the ORG prior to CARDINAL DATE and to men who entered service in the ORG before that date .

The beneficiary has the right to choose between the lower retirement age , based on the earlier provision , or the higher retirement age . If a man chooses the lower retirement age , the amount of his pension accrued on the basis of the duration of his service is , in respect of the service prior to DATE , reduced by CARDINAL percentage units per month of earlier retirement . ”