The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr G. Kostanyan , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

On an unspecified date , the applicant instituted civil proceedings against CARDINAL individuals , A. , DATE , seeking to recover certain property and damages for lost profit .

On DATE the PERSON and Nor ORG of GPE ( PERSON և PERSON համայնքների առաջին ատյանի դատարան ) partially granted the applicant 's claim and ordered that the property belonging to him be returned . His claim for damages was rejected .

On DATE ORG ( ՀՀ քաղաքացիական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան ) upheld this judgment .

On DATE ORG ( ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարան ) quashed this judgment in its part concerning damages and remitted for a new examination .

On DATE ORG partially granted the applicant 's claim for damages and awarded him CARDINAL NORP drams ( ORG ) ( TIME . ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the material time ) to be paid jointly by the co - defendants .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment in the final instance . The judgment entered into force .

On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .

On DATE ORG ( the DEJA ) ( Դատական ակտերի հարկադիր կատարումն ապահովող ծառայություն ) instituted enforcement proceedings . On DATE , the Bailiff ( հարկադիր կատարող ) made a decision to arrest any immovable and movable property belonging to the co - defendants . On DATE the Bailiff made inquiries with various public authorities , seeking to disclose such property .

On DATE and DATE the Bailiff was informed by the vehicle registration authorities that no cars were registered in the co - defendants ' names . On CARDINAL and DATE the ORG was informed by the tax authorities that the co - defendants were not registered as tax payers .

On DATE the Bailiff visited the co - defendants for enforcement purposes and DATE drew up records on the failure to disclose any movable property to be confiscated . As to immovable property , the only such property disclosed was a CARDINAL share in a flat belonging to co - defendant PERSON share in the same flat belonging to co - defendant A. had been already confiscated by the courts for him to be able to meet another judgment debt . On DATE the Bailiff decided to arrest the share in the flat belonging to defendant P.

By a letter of DATE the Bailiff instructed the applicant to apply to the relevant court , to have this share severed and confiscated in accordance with LAW .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the PERSON and Nor ORG of GPE addressed to the President and the judge who had presided over his case , with the following content :

“ To : The President of the PERSON and Nor ORG , [ Mr. PERSON ] , and the judge who had presided over the trial , [ Mr. PERSON ]

From : [ The applicant ( address ) ]

CARDINAL Application - claim

Dear [ Mr. PERSON and B. ] ,

A sum of QUANTITY was awarded to me by a final judgment made against [ co - defendants A. , P. and H. ] . The court seized the flat ... belonging to the above mentioned persons . However , the ORG has been informed in writing that by a judgment of DATE ... [ co - defendant A. ] lost his ownership in respect of this flat , despite the fact that this flat should have been seized [ already ] on DATE . For this reason , the ORG instructs me to have the share in the flat belonging to [ co - defendant P. ] severed and confiscated by applying to [ your court ] .

Based on the above , I ask you to fulfil the instruction given by the ORG . ”

Attached to this application were a copy of the judgment of DATE and the ORG 's letter of DATE .

By an undated letter the Acting President of the PERSON and Nor ORG of GPE ( PERSON և PERSON համայնքների առաջին ատյանի դատարանի նախագահի ժամանակավոր պաշտոնակատար ) informed the applicant that :

“ In reply to your application I would like to inform you that the court examines civil cases and issues judgments , following which [ the ORG ] enforces these judgments on the basis of execution writs . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG addressed to judge PERSON who had presided over his case , with virtually the same content . At the end the applicant added :

“ I ask you to issue a decision to sever and confiscate the share belonging to [ co - defendant P. ] , since , after having applied to the first instance court , I have received a meaningless reply . ”

On DATE the applicant complained to the President of ORG that :

“ As instructed by the [ relevant ] branch of the ORG , I applied to your court seeking to have a share in a flat belonging to [ co - defendant P. ] severed and confiscated , since , after having applied with this request to the PERSON and Nor ORG , I have received an indefinite reply . However , your judge [ PERSON ] avoids giving any written reply , whether positive or negative . ”

By a letter of DATE judge PERSON replied that ORG had no competence to deal with obstacles arising in the enforcement stage and advised the applicant to apply to the relevant first instance court .

On an unspecified date , following the communication of the present application to the respondent Government , i.e. DATE , co - defendant PERSON voluntarily paid the sum of money he owed to the applicant .

On an unspecified date , the Bailiff decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings .

According to LAW , the Bailiff must implement the enforcement activities within DATE from the date of receipt of the execution writ , which does not include the period when the enforcement activities are in the process of an auction or the period required for finding the debtor or disclosing any property belonging to him , unless the law prescribes a shorter period for the enforcement or an immediate enforcement .

According to LAW , if a co - owner of a shared or joint property does not have other sufficient means , the creditor can seek to have the debtor 's share severed from the common property in order to have it confiscated . If it is impossible to sever the share in kind or if the other co - owners of the shared or joint property object to it , the creditor can require the other co - owners of the common property to buy the debtor 's share at the market price in order to pay the debt . If the other co - owners of the common property refuse to buy the debtor 's share , the creditor can have the debtor 's share in the common property confiscated through court proceedings and sold at a public auction . ”

According to LAW , the court institutes civil proceedings only on the basis of a claim or an application .

LAW , CARDINAL DATE provides that an application to court must be submitted in writing . The application must contain : CARDINAL ) the name of the court applied to ; CARDINAL ) names and addresses of the parties ; CARDINAL ) the sum sought , if the claim has a value ; CARDINAL ) circumstances on which the claims are based ; CARDINAL ) documents substantiating the claims ; CARDINAL ) an estimate of the contested sum or the sum to be confiscated ; CARDINAL ) the applicant 's demands , and if several defendants are sued , the applicant 's demands directed against each of them ; and CARDINAL) a list of attached documents . The application may also contain other relevant information , if they are necessary for the proper determination of the case , as well as the applicant 's motions . The application must be signed by the applicant or an authorised representative .

According to LAW , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , the judge shall return the application if , inter alia , the requirements contained in LAW as to its form and substance have not been complied with . The court shall adopt a decision to return the application within DATE of its receipt . If the application is returned , the applicant could re - apply after having corrected its defects . If disagreeing with the decision to return the application , the applicant can apply to the president of the court for a review , within DATE of its receipt . The president of the court shall examine the application within DATE and adopt a decision on it .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL provides that a judicial act , which does not determine the case on its merits , shall be adopted in the form of a decision . A decision adopted as a separate document shall contain : CARDINAL ) the name of the court , its composition , the case number , the date , the subject of the dispute ; CARDINAL ) the names of the parties ; CARDINAL ) the question to be decided ; CARDINAL ) the reasons which led to the court 's conclusions , including references to laws and other legal acts ; CARDINAL ) the conclusion on the question being decided ; and CARDINAL ) the procedure and time - limit for lodging an appeal , if the decision is subject to appeal .

According to LAW regulates the relations connected with the examination , in a procedure and within the time - limits prescribed by law , of proposals , applications and complaints of citizens and legal persons by the ORG , public and other authorities , the local self - government , the relevant officials and organisations , with the response to the facts of violations of rights and lawful interests of citizens and legal persons , and with the elimination and prevention of such violations . This PERSON does not apply to the procedure for the examination of proposals , applications and complaints of citizens prescribed by LAW , LAW , the labour and other laws .

DATE provides that the ORG authorities , the local self - government and the relevant officials are obliged , inter alia , to admit and to examine , within the scope of their competence and in the procedure and within the time - limits prescribed by law , the proposals , applications and complaints of citizens , to reply to them and to take other relevant measures .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The facts of the case , as found by the ORG and not contested before the ORG , are as follows :

On DATE , proceedings for recovery of a debt of MONEY ( GBP ) were commenced by ORG against the applicant in ORG .

By reason of LAW , rule CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , of ORG DATE the case was referred for hearing by way of arbitration under LAW , rule CARDINAL , of ORG .

On DATE a preliminary hearing took place . The plaintiff did not attend , and Mr GPE requested that the claim be struck out . LOC ( the arbitrator ) refused to do so .

Mr GPE made an application for the main hearing to be in public and for evidence to be given on oath . This application was heard on DATE and refused . The reasons for the refusal were not recorded formally , but in a note of CARDINAL DATE prepared in the context of the LAW proceedings , ORG made the following comments :

" At this stage I can only say that it is likely that I took the view that the [ applicant 's ] reasons as set out in his application were not in my view good reasons for the private nature of arbitration proceedings to be dispensed with . Further the sum of the dispute and the nature of the dispute were basically no different from the usual " run of the mill " arbitration disputes heard in any county court . Lastly , at the time the arbitration hearing had been fixed , prior to the filing of the application [ for the case to be heard in open court ] . I can not say with certainty the above are the reasons I gave . The earlier fixing of an arbitration hearing date would have carried little weight with me if I had considered the application had any particular merit . ... "

The arbitration hearing took place in private on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG PERSON made his award in writing , finding in favour of the plaintiff .

Mr GPE made an application for the arbitration award to be set aside on the ground that there had been " misconduct " or " errors of law " by the District Judge , pursuant to LAW , rule CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , of ORG DATE .

The hearing of the application to set aside took place before a Recorder in private . He refused the application on CARDINAL DATE and made a costs order against Mr GPE . These costs were subsequently assessed at GBP DATE .

Mr GPE then applied for leave to appeal to ORG alleging a lack of public hearing , misconduct by the judge and an overall unfairness of the proceedings . Mr GPE was heard in open court and leave was refused on CARDINAL DATE . Lord Justice PERSON noted that LAW is not part of our law in the way ORG law is , and the provisions of the county court rule to which I have referred entitled LOC to hold the hearing in private " . He further found that the judge could not be said to have been guilty of any misconduct and rejected Mr GPE ’s allegations as to unfairness . In connection with a submission that the District Judge was wrong on CARDINAL particular point of law , he continued : " That seems to me to be a matter largely of fact , because if these CARDINAL cheques were handed over for value and either of them was countermanded and subsequently presented , then it would seem that there would be a cause of action on the cheque ... " .

Order CARDINAL , rule CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , of ORG ( " the Rules " ) , as in force at the relevant time , states that any proceedings in which the sum claimed or amount involved does not exceed GBP CARDINAL shall be referred for arbitration .

Order CARDINAL , rule CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , of the LAW provides as follows :

" ( CARDINAL ) Any proceedings referred to arbitration shall be dealt with in accordance with the following paragraphs of this rule unless the arbitrator otherwise orders .

( CARDINAL ) The hearing shall be informal and the strict rules of evidence shall not apply ; unless the arbitrator orders otherwise , the hearing shall be held in private and evidence shall not be taken on oath .

( CARDINAL ) At the hearing the arbitrator may adopt any method of procedure which he may consider to be fair and which gives to each party an equal opportunity to have his case presented ; ... "

Order CARDINAL , rule CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , of the Rules reads as follows :

" Where proceedings are referred to arbitration , the award of the arbitrator shall be final and may only be set aside ... on the ground that there has been misconduct by the arbitrator or that the arbitrator made an error of law . "

NORP In monetary matters of MONEY CARDINAL,CARDINAL , and wherever ORG judge makes his order in an appellate capacity , leave to appeal must be obtained before a ORG order may be appealed to ORG ( see ORG , LAW , rule DATE , referring to ORG DATE ) .

Under LAW , which came into force on DATE , hearings , including those in small claims cases , are to be held in public . There is a discretion for the court to hold a hearing in private where :

( a ) publicity would defeat the object of the hearing ;

( b ) it involves matters relating to national security ;

( c ) it involves confidential information ( including information relating to personal financial matters ) and publicity would damage that confidentiality ;

( d ) a private hearing is necessary to protect the interests of any child or person suffering from mental incapacity ;

( e ) it is a hearing of an application made without notice and it would be unjust to the respondent for there to be a public hearing ;

( f ) it involves non - contentious matters arising in the administration of trusts or in the administration of a deceased person ’s estate ; or

( g ) the court considers a private hearing to be necessary in the interests of justice .


Preliminary objection rejected (six months);Preliminary objection joined to merits and rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE criminal complaints were lodged against the applicant for instigation to fraud and for issuing checks for the payment of which there were no adequate funds . The prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against him .

In DATE the investigating judge ordered the applicant ’s provisional detention ( warrant No . CARDINAL ) . However , the applicant evaded arrest .

On DATE the indictments chamber of the first instance criminal court ( simvulio plimmeliodikon ) of GPE decided to commit the applicant for trial to the CARDINAL - member ORG ( trimeles efetio ) of GPE , sitting as a first instance court , on the above charges . The chamber confirmed the investigating judge ’s warrant concerning the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the indictments chamber decided to commit the applicant for trial on a number of supplementary charges .

NORP The applicant was arrested on DATE . Until DATE the applicant was deemed to be serving a sentence that had been imposed on him for unrelated offences in DATE . As a result , the applicant ’s detention on remand on the fraud and other charges mentioned above officially started on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for his provisional release . On CARDINAL DATE the indictments chamber of ORG of GPE rejected his application .

On DATE the applicant appeared , together with ORG , JK and DK , before the CARDINAL - member ORG of GPE . He was represented by counsel who also acted for ORG and JK . The trial lasted until DATE when the court heard the final submissions of the parties on the question of guilt of the applicant and his co - defendants . Then the court withdrew for deliberations in the course of which it decided to acquit the applicant and convict PERSON and JK .

The relevant decision was pronounced and then the court heard submissions on the sentences to be imposed on ORG and DATE . Counsel who represented the applicant as well as ORG and JK was heard in this connection . The court withdrew for deliberations in the course of which it decided on the penalties to be imposed . It also decided that “ the applicant should not be compensated for the time he spent in detention on remand ” . The relevant decision was pronounced on DATE , i.e. on DATE .

NORP However , its text was finalised ( katharographi ) on DATE . The applicant was informed of this development later on and obtained a certified copy on DATE .

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows :

“ Persons who have been detained on remand and subsequently acquitted ... have the right to request compensation ... , if it has been established in the proceedings that they did not commit the criminal offence for which they have been detained on remand . ”

“ The ORG does not have any obligation to compensate a person who ... has been detained on remand if the latter , intentionally or by gross negligence , was responsible for his own detention . ”

“ Upon an application submitted orally by the person who has been acquitted , the court which heard the case shall decide on the ORG 's obligation to pay compensation in a separate decision issued at the same time as the verdict . However , the court may also issue such a decision proprio motu ...

The decision regarding the obligation of the ORG to pay compensation can not be challenged separately ; it is , however , quashed when the decision on the principal issue of the criminal trial is reversed . ”

“ The person who has suffered prejudice may request compensation at a later stage before the same court .

In these circumstances , the application must be submitted to the public prosecutor of this court strictly within TIME from the pronouncement of the judgment in open court . ”

“ After it has been decided that the ORG must pay compensation , the person entitled thereto may bring his claim before the civil courts , which may not re - examine the existence of the ORG 's obligation . ”

“ Persons who have been unfairly ... detained on remand must be compensated for any material prejudice they have suffered as a result of their ... detention . They must also be compensated for moral damage ... . ”


CASE OF PEDERSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

On DATE the first applicant , as the owner of CARDINAL freshwater fish farms , was charged with offences against the LAW on freshwater fish farms of DATE ( bekendtgørelse nr . CARDINAL ) , henceforth also called LAW , as allegedly he had intentionally exceeded the fixed feed quotas with danger or risk thereof to the environment , and with enrichment for himself .

On DATE an indictment was submitted to ORG in GPE ( ORG ) before which the trial was scheduled for DATE . However , the trial was adjourned awaiting the outcome of a corresponding pending criminal case , considered to be a “ test - case ” , in which the defendant had alleged inter alia that LAW had no legal authority as it contravened articles of LAW and provisions of LAW ( PERSON ) . The Government claimed that the adjournment was initiated by the first applicant ’s counsel . The applicant contested this . It is undisputed , however , that the parties agreed to the adjournment and that no objections were raised against it . The proceedings in the test - case were finally determined on appeal by a ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

Subsequent to a preliminary hearing held in the applicant ’s case on DATE it was decided to adjourn his case anew awaiting another corresponding pending criminal case , considered to be a test - case , in which the defendant had alleged that the DATE Act had no legal authority as ORG had not been notified of it as allegedly prescribed by the CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC ORG CARDINAL laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations , amended by the CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC ORG . The proceedings in the corresponding case were finally determined on appeal in DATE when a ORG delivered its judgment .

The applicant ’s trial commenced on DATE . Since a witness on the applicant ’s behalf was prevented from appearing on DATE , the trial continued and ended on DATE . By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG in GPE convicted the applicant and sentenced him to pay a fine of CARDINAL Danish kroner ( DKK ) . In addition a profit estimated to DKK CARDINAL was confiscated .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG GPE ( PERSON ) before which he was granted permission to procure an expert witness , who during the preparation of the case was requested to reply in writing to specific questions formulated by counsel , and approved by the prosecutor .

NORP By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG GPE upheld the applicant ’s conviction , but increased the fine to DKK CARDINAL and the amount to be confiscated to DKK CARDINAL .

The applicant ’s request of DATE for leave to appeal against ORG judgment to ORG ( Højesteret ) was granted by the Leave to Appeal Board ( Procesbevillingsnævnet ) on DATE .

The case was brought before ORG on DATE , where it was joined with the second applicant ’s appeal ( see below ) .

II

On DATE , the second applicant , as manager of CARDINAL limited companies which each owned a freshwater fish farm , was charged with offences against the amended LAW DATE on freshwater fish farms partly in conjunction with LAW of DATE ( bekendtgørelse nr . CARDINAL jfr . tildels bekendtgørelse nr . CARDINAL ) , as allegedly he had intentionally exceeded the fixed feed quotas with danger or risk thereof to the environment , and with enrichment for the companies .

The case was brought before ORG in Mariager ( retten i Mariager ) by the prosecution ’s submission of an indictment of DATE , which was later extended by supplementary indictments .

In the period DATE and DATE the case was adjourned awaiting the outcome of a corresponding pending criminal case , which was considered to be a test - case .

On DATE the proceedings were adjourned at the request of the applicant ’s counsel , who wished to submit a written pleading . On CARDINAL DATE counsel requested an extension of the time - limit for submitting his pleading . On DATE he stated that his pleading was approaching . On DATE he was granted yet another extension of the timelimit , and on DATE the pleading was submitted .

Further pleadings were submitted and additional preliminary issues were dealt with , inter alia with regard to counsel ’s request that the applicant ’s case be joined with another corresponding pending case .

On DATE counsel was granted an extension of the timelimit to submit his rejoinder within DATE .

A hearing was held on DATE and the case was scheduled to commence on DATE as counsel had stated that he was unable to appear before that date .

On DATE ORG in PERSON convicted the applicant and sentenced him to pay a fine of DKK CARDINAL . In addition profits estimated to DKK CARDINAL and DKK CARDINAL , respectively , were confiscated in the companies .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG , before which the case was ready to be listed for trial on DATE . As counsel was unable to appear on the proposed dates in DATE , DATE and DATE , the case was scheduled for trial on DATE .

By judgment of DATE the High Court of Western GPE upheld the applicant ’s conviction , but increased the fine to DKK CARDINAL and the amounts to be confiscated to DKK CARDINAL and DKK CARDINAL respectively .

The applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE for leave to appeal against ORG judgment to ORG was granted by the Leave to Appeal Board on DATE .

The case was brought before ORG on DATE , where it was joined with the first applicant ’s appeal . The applicants jointly argued that the LAW of DATE had no legal authority as ORG had not been notified of it as allegedly prescribed by the CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC ORG CARDINAL laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations , amended by the CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC ORG , and that accordingly they should be acquitted . Moreover , they requested that ORG referred the question of the legal consequences of the non - notification to ORG pursuant to the former LAW .

As to the latter the Prosecutor General procured an opinion from ORG of DATE , finding no basis for a preliminary reference , an opinion he endorsed . On DATE ORG requested counsel ’s comment on this issue .

On DATE the applicants requested that an additional counsel be assigned to plead on the ORG - law issues of the case . This was refused by ORG on DATE . DATE , the applicants requested that a named attorney substitute their counsel as to the ORG issues . This request was granted on DATE and the proceedings were adjourned for DATE pending comments from the substituting counsel .

It appears that the substituting counsel CARDINAL times was granted an extension of the time - limit to submit his comments , thus his first written pleading was submitted on DATE .

The Prosecutor General stated definitively on DATE that he found no basis for referring the case to ORG for a preliminary ruling .

The exchange of pleadings on this question continued until DATE , as the substitute counsel CARDINAL times requested that the Prosecutor General submit written replies to various questions put by counsel on the issue . Each time the replies were followed by a comprehensive pleading by the substitute counsel .

On DATE ORG decided not to refer the case to ORG for a preliminary ruling , as it found that there was no obligation to notify ORG of the specific section of the LAW on freshwater fish farms of DATE , with which the applicants were charged , and that there was no reasonable doubt that the section in question was in accordance with ORG legislation .

By judgment of DATE ORG upheld the High ORG ’s judgment in respect of the first applicant , but reduced the amount to be confiscated to DKK CARDINAL , and by judgment of the same date ORG upheld ORG judgment in its entirety in respect of the second applicant .


CASE OF STOJKOVIC v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Causal link;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

DATE and DATE the applicant worked as a manager of a joint stock company ( “ the employer ” ) . On DATE he was dismissed by the employer ’s disciplinary commission , a decision which was confirmed by the executive board on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against the employer to annul his dismissal and for his reinstatement as a manager .

On DATE the then ORG ( Општински Суд Штип ) dismissed his claim .

On DATE the then ORG ( Окружен Суд Штип ) upheld his appeal of DATE and remitted the case for a re - examination .

Of QUANTITY hearings scheduled before the first - instance court , none was adjourned at the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the then ORG dismissed his claim . That decision was upheld by then ORG decision of DATE dismissing his appeal of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) which was granted by ORG decision of DATE . On DATE the then ORG again upheld the first - instance decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted a fresh appeal on points of law before ORG . On DATE ORG quashed both the first- and second - instance decisions and remitted the case for a renewed examination . It ruled that the lower courts had erroneously established that the employer ’s meeting of shareholders ( собрание на акционери ) and the strike board ( штрајкувачки одбор ) had discharged the applicant as the employer ’s manager prior to the disciplinary commission having given the dismissal decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the minutes of their meeting of DATE , they had only voted against him , but had left the matter to be decided by the disciplinary commission .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested the removal of the first - instance judge for bias . On DATE the President of ORG Instance dismissed that request as unsubstantiated .

According to the information submitted by the parties , none of the CARDINAL hearings fixed by the first - instance court was adjourned at the applicant ’s request .

On DATE ORG annulled the DATE dismissal order finding that it was not given by an authorised body . However , it dismissed the applicant ’s claim for his reinstatement to a post corresponding to his qualifications since bankruptcy proceedings had been meanwhile launched against the employer . The employer ’s receiver ( стечаен управник ) could decide the reinstatement issue .

On DATE ORG quashed this decision as incoherent and ordered a retrial arguing that the lower court had erred in establishing the facts concerning the body competent to decide on the dismissal .

After CARDINAL hearings being fixed , on DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant ’s claims finding that : he was discharged as the employer ’s manager by the executive board on DATE ; under an application for disciplinary proceedings submitted by the strike board , the newly appointed manager requested the disciplinary commission to dismiss him for having committed serious work - related violations , which was actually done by the commission ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE ; and the executive board dismissed his objection by decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court therefore concluded that the applicant ’s claims were ill - founded . This decision was given by another first - instance judge . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law before ORG arguing that the lower courts had wrongly established and assessed the facts .

The applicant died on DATE .

On DATE ORG finally dismissed his appeal finding that the lower courts had properly established the facts and correctly applied the national law . According to a note written on the slip receipt , on DATE there was an unsuccessful attempt to serve this decision due to the applicant ’s death . The applicant ’s successors maintained that they learnt about this decision only on DATE when they received the ORG ’s observations . The Government did not contest that assertion .

During the proceedings , the applicant applied several times to the first - instance court to expedite the proceedings . His requests for priority treatment submitted before ORG were refused . He also notified ORG about the protracted length of the proceedings .

LAW of the then LAW ( ORG за парничната постапка ) ( “ the Act ” ) provided that it was incumbent upon the court to undertake to conduct the proceedings without undue delay and economically , and to avoid any attempt of abuse of the rights afforded to the parties concerned .

LAW of the LAW provided , inter alia , that the court should take into consideration the necessity of urgent settlement of employment disputes .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG за судовите ) of DATE ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) provides that a party concerned can lodge with the immediate higher court ( непосредно повисокиот суд ) an application for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time if he / she considers that it has been violated by a court of competent jurisdiction . The immediate higher court considers the application ( постапува по барањето ) within DATE after it has been lodged and decides whether the court below violated the right to a hearing within a reasonable time . The higher court shall award just satisfaction to the claimant if it finds a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time . The just satisfaction shall be paid from the ORG ’s budget . LAW became applicable on DATE ( section CARDINAL ) .


András Baka;Françoise Tulkens;Mindia Ugrekhelidze;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

“ Sensitivity on the left lumbar region and on the lower part of the left hemithorax has been observed . ”


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

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

The applicant , who had a criminal record of CARDINAL convictions , was arrested on DATE and questioned on suspicion of blackmail and extortion committed against a businessman .

On DATE his detention on remand was authorised for DATE by ORG for fear that the applicant might commit fresh offences and obstruct the investigation . The applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing .

On DATE the applicant was charged with attempted extortion committed in an organised group . On the same date , ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s detention until CARDINAL DATE on the same grounds , the applicant ’s lawyer being present . The applicant ’s appeal against that order was rejected by ORG on DATE , in the presence of his lawyer .

On DATE the ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s remand in custody until DATE on the same grounds , i.e. , for fear that the applicant might commit new crimes or obstruct the investigation . Both the applicant and his lawyer were present .

His appeal against the extension order was rejected on DATE , the applicant ’s defence counsel being present .

On DATE the term of the applicant ’s remand was extended until CARDINAL September CARDINAL by ORG on the same grounds as before , the applicant and his lawyer being present . The applicant appealed , requesting the variation of his remand . He pleaded not guilty and alleged that there was no fear of him absconding since he had a family and a permanent place of residence . The appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE , in the presence of the applicant ’s defence counsel . The court considered that the grounds for his detention persisted .

On DATE the ORG authorised the applicant ’s detention on remand until DATE , in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer . The court briefly noted that the applicant “ was accused of having committed serious offences , hence there was a reason to believe that he may commit new crimes if released . ” On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision , his representative being present . The appellate court noted , inter alia , that the applicant was suspected of heading a criminal organisation , thereby justifying the fear of his committing fresh crimes and influencing witnesses .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on remand until DATE . While the court emphasised the necessity to expedite the investigation of the case , it considered that continued detention was justified by the fear that the applicant might abscond and commit fresh crimes . The applicant and his defence counsel were present . The applicant ’s appeal against that order was dismissed by ORG on DATE , his lawyer being present .

During DATE , in the context of several other sets of criminal proceedings , the applicant was charged with attempted aggravated murder , the destruction of property by organising explosions , forming a criminal organisation , and false reporting of a crime . Those charges were subsequently added to the original proceedings against the applicant .

On DATE the ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s detention until DATE for fear of his absconding and committing new offences . The court found that the serious charges against the applicant and his CARDINAL previous convictions justified that fear . The applicant and his defence counsel were present at the hearing .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the extension of the term of his detention on remand , upholding the reasoning of the lower court .

On DATE the ORG extended the term of the detention until DATE on the same grounds as before , the applicant and his lawyer being present .

The bill of indictment in the applicant ’s case was confirmed on DATE . He was indicted on CARDINAL counts , including attempted murder , extortion , involvement in a criminal association , the destruction or property and the illegal acquisition of explosives . CARDINAL other co - accused were indicted with the applicant ; CARDINAL witnesses were identified , and the case materials comprised CARDINAL volumes .

On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the prolongation of his detention on remand .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the applicant and his defence counsel and decided further to extend the applicant ’s remand in custody until DATE , for fear of his absconding , committing new crimes and obstructing the investigation . The court mentioned the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the strength of the evidence in the case file to justify that fear . The applicant appealed , claiming that the evidence against him was not sufficient to warrant his prolonged detention . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal in the presence of his lawyer .

On DATE ORG held a directions hearing in the presence of the applicant ’s defence counsel , whereby it decided to return the case to the investigators . On the same occasion , the court dismissed the applicant ’s request to vary the remand measure .

On DATE the ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s remand in custody until DATE on the same grounds as before . The applicant and his defence counsel were present at the hearing . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal against the order in the presence of counsel .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE , returning the case to ORG for trial . On the same occasion , the court extended the term of the applicant ’s detention on remand until DATE , noting that the grounds for the continued detention on remand persisted . The applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing . The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , but it was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s remand in custody until DATE for fear of his obstructing the investigation and committing fresh crimes . The court noted the applicant ’s criminal record , the gravity of the charges against him and the strength of the evidence in the case file to justify that fear . The applicant and his representative were present at the hearing .

On DATE the ORG committed the applicant for trial .

On the same date ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s detention on remand until DATE on the same grounds . The applicant and his defence counsel were present at the hearing . The applicant ’s appeal against that order was dismissed by ORG on DATE . ORG observed that the trial of the case had been prolonged , but noted that the delay was not imputable to the trial court .

On DATE the ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s remand in custody until DATE on the same grounds , the applicant ’s lawyer being present . The applicant ’s appeal against the order was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE a prosecutor confirmed a bill of indictment in another criminal case whereby the applicant was charged on CARDINAL counts , including causing grievous bodily harm , theft and extortion . CARDINAL other persons were indicted with the applicant . CARDINAL victims and QUANTITY witnesses were identified . On DATE the ORG committed the applicant for trial in that case .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on remand until DATE on the same grounds , in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant appealed , requesting his release on bail . He claimed that his detention was unjustified since he could live with his family . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the extension order . The applicant ’s lawyer was present at the hearing .

On DATE the ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s detention on remand until DATE , the applicant ’s defence counsel being present . The court referred to the strength of the evidence in the case file and the fear that the applicant might commit new crimes and obstruct the investigation by influencing the witnesses .

The applicant ’s appeal against the above order was dismissed - in the presence of the applicant ’s lawyer - by ORG on DATE . The court took into account the fact that the applicant had been detained on remand for a considerable period of time , but noted that this was justified by the complexity and volume of the case ( numerous charges against CARDINAL co - accused and a case file in CARDINAL volumes ) . ORG did not find any indication of procrastination in the proceedings . It noted that the examination of the case had been delayed due to objective circumstances . In particular , several hearings had been adjourned due to the failure of the witnesses or defence lawyers to appear before the court . The co - defendants had requested the adjournment of the trial on several occasions . The court finally observed that the applicant had submitted no serious reason that would prompt it to vary the remand measure .

On DATE the CARDINAL cases against the applicant were joined , and the prosecution presented a new set of charges . These included creating a criminal organisation , the illegal acquisition of explosives , extortion , the destruction of property in dangerous ways , causing serious bodily harm and the attempted murder of several people . These charges covered CARDINAL episodes which took place at different times .

On DATE the ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s remand in custody until DATE on the same grounds as before . ORG also noted the fact of the applicant having denied his guilt amongst the reasons justifying the fear of his absconding , obstructing the investigation and committing fresh crimes . The applicant ’s lawyer was present at the hearing .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision , his lawyer being present . While ORG acknowledged that the length of the applicant ’s detention on remand had been somewhat prolonged , it considered the length to be justified in view of the complexity of the case , the gravity and number of charges against the applicant , and the strength of the evidence in the case file . ORG noted that the investigation and trial had been adjourned a number of times for the purpose of satisfying various procedural requests of the defendants and their lawyers to investigate or re - evaluate evidence . In addition , witnesses , complainants and the defendants’ lawyers had failed to attend certain court hearings . At the same time , the appellate court eliminated from the reasoning of ORG decision of DATE the reference to the applicant denying his guilt as an element justifying his remand in custody . In this connection the ORG emphasised that taking account of such an element could unlawfully prejudge the assessment by a trial judge of the merits of the charges against the applicant . ORG underlined that the reasons for detention must pertain solely to the need to ensure the attendance of a person at trial , and that remand in custody could not be authorised on the ground of any premature assessment of the evidence against the defendant or his plea in regard to the charges .

ORG further observed that the applicant had submitted no valid reasons to prompt varying his remand , all his requests for release being motivated exclusively by the alleged lack of evidence , and there being no element in the applicant ’s appeals to allay the fear that he might abscond , obstruct the investigation or commit fresh crimes . ORG reiterated in this respect that it was not its function to rule on the merits of the charges against the applicant when deciding the question of his remand . The appellate court concluded that the likelihood of the applicant absconding , obstructing the investigation or committing fresh crimes persisted regardless of the relatively lengthy period of his remand in custody .

On DATE the ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s remand in custody until DATE , again for fear of his absconding , obstructing the investigation and committing new crimes . The applicant ’s lawyer was present at the hearing .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant on CARDINAL counts , including attempted murder , causing grievous bodily harm , involvement in a criminal association , the destruction of property and theft . He was acquitted on CARDINAL other counts . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , including the time already spent in detention on remand . He was also fined in the amount of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , and confiscation of his property was ordered . The judgment was CARDINAL pages long , and CARDINAL other persons were convicted with the applicant . The court heard CARDINAL victims and QUANTITY witnesses .

In response to the applicant ’s complaint about the length of the proceedings , the court noted that , while they were somewhat protracted , the essence of the applicant ’s right to be tried within a reasonable time was not breached . ORG observed that the length of the proceedings had been largely determined by the conduct of the co - accused and their lawyers . In particular , CARDINAL hearings had to be adjourned due to the failure of defence lawyers ( including the applicant ’s representative ) to appear before the court , or their inability to take part in the proceedings due to illness . CARDINAL more hearings had been adjourned because of the GPE illness , the change of lawyers , or the refusal of the defendants to participate in the trial .

The applicant appealed , complaining that the case against him had been fabricated , that the charges had been imprecise and had been changed a number of times , that he had not been given access to the case file , that his defence rights had been breached , that the trial court had refused to call certain witnesses , that the judges had been biased , and that certain other irregularities had rendered the trial unfair . The applicant also complained about the length of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG amended the judgment , acquitting the applicant on a number of counts , including attempted murder , involvement in a criminal association and theft , on the grounds that the evidence supporting his guilt was contradictory . The prosecution for false reporting of a crime was discontinued as time - barred . The applicant ’s conviction for causing grievous bodily harm , extortion and destruction of property was upheld . The sentence was accordingly reduced to DATE imprisonment , including the period that the applicant had already spent in custody ( as of DATE ) . The court also ordered confiscation of the applicant ’s property in the amount of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .

While ORG acknowledged that some delays in the proceedings had been imputable to the authorities - namely , the delays which had occurred because of the changes in the composition of the trial court - it considered that the applicant ’s right to “ trial within a reasonable time ” was not breached . Nor did it find any other irregularities which could have rendered the proceedings “ unfair ” as alleged by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was released on licence .

The applicant ’s cassation appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE . ORG found no indication of unfairness in the proceedings or a breach of the applicant ’s procedural rights .

On DATE the applicant brought before ORG an action against ORG , claiming pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages for his being infected with Hepatitis C during his stay in the remand prison . On DATE the court disallowed his action for want of jurisdiction . The court observed that the applicant should have brought the claim before ORG , pursuant to the relevant procedural provisions .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG , claiming pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages from ORG in relation to his Hepatitis C infection . On DATE the court disallowed the action by reason of the applicant ’s failure to comply with the relevant procedural requirements , namely , to state his factual and legal claims in a clear manner . The court gave the applicant time until DATE to amend the action . On DATE the applicant submitted a fresh action . However , it was disallowed by ORG on DATE on the same grounds . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE .

The prison doctors confirmed that the applicant was infected with Hepatitis C and prescribed appropriate treatment . The applicant ’s condition was further monitored throughout DATE .

The provisions of LAW ( ORG proceso kodeksas ) , in force until DATE , provided as follows :

“ Detention on remand shall be used only ... in cases where a statutory penalty of DATE imprisonment is envisaged . ...

The grounds for the detention on remand shall be specified . The grounds ... shall be the reasonable suspicion that the accused will :

( CARDINAL ) abscond from the investigation and trial ;

( CARDINAL ) obstruct the determination of the truth in the case [ influence other parties or destroy evidence ] ;

( CARDINAL ) commit new offences ... whilst suspected of having committed crimes provided in ORG ... CARDINAL [ aggravated murder ] , CARDINAL [ serious bodily harm ] .... CARDINAL [ founding a criminal organisation ] , ... CARDINAL [ theft ] , CARDINAL [ extortion ] , CARDINAL § CARDINAL [ aggravated destruction of property ] ... of LAW ... .

Where there is a reasonable fear that the accused will abscond from the investigation and trial , detention on remand may be ordered taking into account his family status , permanent place of residence , employment relations , health , criminal record , relations abroad and other circumstances . ... ” .

“ ... [ T]he arrested person shall be brought before a judge within not more than CARDINAL hours ... The judge must hear the person as to the grounds of the arrest . The prosecutor and counsel for the arrested person shall take part in the inquiry [ unless the judge decides otherwise ] . ... After having questioned the arrested person , the judge may maintain the arrest order by fixing the term of detention , or may vary or revoke the remand measure . ...

After the case has been transmitted to the court ... [ it ] can order , vary or revoke the detention on remand . ... ”

“ Detention on remand can not last longer than DATE . A specific term of remand shall be fixed by a judge adopting the remand order ; this term can be extended by the same judge or another judge of the same district court , but only for a period not exceeding DATE .

In view of the particular complexity or size of a case , a judge of a regional court may extend the maximum term specified in the first paragraph of this LAW for a period not exceeding DATE . The extension may be repeated , but the total length of the term at the stage of the pre - trial investigation may not exceed DATE ...

For the purpose of extending the term of detention on remand at the stage of the pre - trial investigation , ... a judge must convene a hearing to which defence counsel and the prosecutor and , if necessary , the detained person shall be called ... . ”

[ Once the case is transferred to a court ] , a court of first or appellate instance shall order detention on remand or extend its term upon the request of a prosecutor or on its own motion for a period not exceeding DATE . The extension may be repeated DATE giving reasons – in view of the particular complexity , size of a case or other objective circumstances . The question of remand shall be resolved at a directions hearing or trial , or at a hearing specially convened for these purposes . The detainee , his defence lawyer , and a prosecutor must be summoned , and their presence before the court is obligatory . ...

If the court decides to remit the case for additional investigation , the maximum length of detention on remand may be extended for a period not exceeding DATE . In such cases , the question of remand shall be resolved by the court , and the case shall be remitted for further investigation . ... ”

“ A person remanded in custody or his defence council shall have the right during the pre - trial investigation or trial to lodge [ with an appellate court ] an appeal against the detention on remand or the extension of its term ... . A judge or the appellate court must examine the appeal within DATE from its receipt . With a view to examining the appeal , a hearing may be convened , to which the arrested person and his counsel or counsel alone shall be summoned . The presence of a prosecutor is obligatory at such a hearing .

The decision taken by [ the appellate judge ] is final and can not be the subject of a cassation appeal ... .

A further appeal shall be determined when examining the extension of the term of the detention on remand . ”

Other relevant provisions of LAW : LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL) and LAW ( CARDINAL) and ( CARDINAL ) provide , respectively , that the accused and their counsel have the right to “ submit requests ” and to “ appeal against acts and decisions of an interrogator , investigator , prosecutor and court . ”

“ A judge individually or a court in a directions hearing , in deciding whether to commit the accused for trial , shall determine ... ( CARDINAL ) whether the remand measure has been selected appropriately . ”

“ After having decided , that there is a sufficient basis to commit the accused for trial , a judge individually or a court in a directions hearing shall determine the questions ... ( CARDINAL ) of the remand measure in respect of the accused ... ”

“ [ During the trial , the defendant ] has the right to ... CARDINAL ) submit requests ; ... ( CARDINAL ) appeal against the judgment and decisions of a court . ”

“ In the course of the trial , a court may decide to order , vary or revoke a remand measure in respect of the defendant . ”

“ CARDINAL . Damage caused by the unlawful acts of public institutions shall be compensated by the ORG from the budget , irrespective of the fault of an actual civil servant ...

For the purposes of this Article , the term “ action ” shall be taken to mean any action ( active action or failure to act ) of a public institution or its employees , which directly affects the rights , liberties or interests of persons ... .

The civil liability of the ORG ... shall arise if employees of public institutions fail to act in accordance with the law . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that , in cases where the ORG is liable to cover the damage , it shall be represented by the ORG or an institution authorised by the Government .


Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Karel Jungwiert;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova;Volodymyr Butkevych

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of theft and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE . No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of theft and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . As the conviction concerned an offence committed during the DATE operational period of the applicant 's sentence in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the court also ordered the applicant to serve the suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment . No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of theft . Combining the applicant 's sentence for this offence with his sentence of DATE imprisonment in case no . CARDINAL , the court sentenced him to a total of DATE and DATE imprisonment for both offences .

The court also ruled as follows :

“ On the basis of LAW of LAW [ the court ] deducts [ from the sentence to be served ] the period , during which [ the applicant ] was detained , calculated from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ” .

No appeal was lodged by either the applicant or the public prosecutor 's office and the judgment became final .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody in connection with case no . CARDINAL .

On an unspecified date towards DATE the applicant appealed against his continued remand in custody in that case .

A report from FAC dated DATE , which detailed the different periods of the applicant 's deprivation of liberty up to that point , was presented to ORG . The said periods were indicated to have been the following :

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE in case no . CARDINAL ORG revoked the order for the applicant 's continued remand in custody in that case and granted him bail . Release was made conditional on the applicant providing a recognizance and subject to there being no other grounds for his continued deprivation of liberty .

The applicant deposited the monetary guarantee on DATE and was released on DATE .

The applicant obtained a certificate from ORG dated DATE , which indicated that DATE and DATE he had accumulated the equivalent of DATE , DATE and DATE of time served , which included days he had worked towards reducing his sentences . The different periods of the applicant 's deprivation of liberty were noted to have been the following :

In a letter of DATE the GPE district public prosecutor 's office informed LOC police station and FAC that the applicant had to be recalled to prison to serve the outstanding part of his sentence in case no . CARDINAL . The reasoning of the district public prosecutor 's office was that the period during which the applicant had been serving his sentence of imprisonment in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL could not count as a remand in custody in case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was detained under an order issued by the district public prosecutor 's office to serve the outstanding part of his sentence in case no . CARDINAL .

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to the GPE regional public prosecutor 's office against the decision of the district public prosecutor 's office . He argued that there was no outstanding prison term for him to serve as a result of the time he had spent remanded in custody in case no . CARDINAL combined with his sentence in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which had both expressly been deducted by the trial court from the time to be effectively served .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the regional public prosecutor 's office dismissed the applicant 's appeal , stating , inter alia :

“ There is a sentence in criminal case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ... , which was not combined with the sentence in criminal case no . CARDINAL . ”

The applicant appealed further .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal . In its reasoning , it stated :

“ Correctly ... the prosecutor from the GPE district public prosecutor 's office took into account the period of the remand in custody of the [ applicant ] in case no . CARDINAL ... [ as being ] only from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , because subsequently he had started to serve a sentence of ' imprisonment ' . ”

In the meantime , on an unspecified date the applicant requested ORG to interpret , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE ( “ ORG ” ) , its judgment of DATE in case no . CARDINAL . He argued , inter alia , that he had been remanded in custody during the whole period DATE and DATE . He further maintained that this period of DATE , DATE and DATE plus the sentence of DATE imprisonment in case no . CARDINAL , which the applicant had already served , meant that he had effectively served the whole sentence of DATE and DATE imprisonment in case no . CARDINAL . The public prosecutor 's office meanwhile , apparently relying on a report prepared by FAC that the applicant 's remand in custody in case no . CARDINAL had been suspended on DATE , considered , inter alia , that the applicant still had to serve DATE of the sentence imposed by the court in case no . CARDINAL .

A hearing was held in the presence of all the parties on DATE . In a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request for interpretation of the judgment of DATE as it considered it to be clear . It found , inter alia , that its judgment quite unequivocally indicated that the whole period of the applicant 's remand in custody DATE and DATE should be deducted from his sentence of DATE and DATE imprisonment . In this respect it stated the following :

“ Accordingly , the will of the court is to deduct THE WHOLE OF THE ABOVE STATED PERIOD [ emphasis added by ORG ] , i.e. the period during which the measure for securing the [ applicant 's ] appearance before the court in the present case was a ' remand in custody ' , and not [ just ] a part thereof . ”

ORG also found that it was not competent to rule on the lawfulness of the decision of the public prosecutor 's office to seek execution of the part of the sentence it claimed was still outstanding .

The applicant was released on DATE after serving the remaining part of the sentence which the public prosecutor 's office had alleged was outstanding in case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant brought an action under the ORG and ORG DATE ( the “ ORG ” , which was renamed in DATE ) against the public prosecutor 's office and ORG .

He contended that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty since CARDINAL DATE because he had had no outstanding prison term to serve . He sought compensation for the non - pecuniary damage he had allegedly suffered as a result .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG established , inter alia , the following :

“ ... the [ applicant ] was remanded in custody in case no . CARDINAL from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . From DATE to DATE [ he ] served his sentence in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ... This sentence can not , by virtue of ORG CARDINAL of LAW , be combined [ with the other sentences ] and it was served separately . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the [ applicant ] served his sentence in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . This sentence was combined with the sentence in case no . CARDINAL and therefore under LAW of LAW the [ trial ] court when delivering its judgment in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL should have deducted the whole period of the sentence [ which had been ] served . It should [ also ] have deducted the whole period of the remand in custody from DATE to CARDINAL DATE on the basis of LAW of LAW . These CARDINAL periods amount to DATE , DATE and DATE . When the [ trial ] court wrote in its judgment that it was deducting the time during which [ the applicant ] had been detained , calculated from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , it in practice wrongly included the time during which he had been serving his sentence [ in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ] DATE from DATE to DATE . [ Accordingly , ] from the sentence of DATE [ the trial court ] deducted DATE , being the period DATE and DATE and it [ thereby ] transpired that the [ applicant ] had no time left to serve . The [ trial ] court made this mistake in spite [ of the fact that ] the case file contained information from FAC [ detailing ] the periods served by the [ applicant ] . In its decision [ of CARDINAL DATE ] dismissing the request to interpret its judgment , the [ trial ] court stated that its intention had been to deduct the whole period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , i.e. the period during which the [ applicant ] was remanded in custody and not [ just ] a part thereof . This shows that the [ trial ] court was misguided [ in thinking ] that [ the applicant was remanded in custody in case no . CARDINAL throughout ] this entire period . Thus , with this judgment , DATE of the [ applicant 's ] sentence was pardoned , because DATE should have been deducted . In spite of this , the public prosecutor 's office did not appeal against the judgment and it became final ... After [ the judgment ] became final , it became binding on the public prosecutor 's office under LAW of the [ ORG ] which should have implemented it instead of attempting to correct the [ existing ] mistake by interpreting the intention of the [ trial ] court . In the period DATE and DATE , including from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , the date the present action was brought , the [ applicant ] unlawfully served a sentence of imprisonment , which if the mistake had not been made he [ would ] have served lawfully . ”

In spite of the above conclusion , ORG found that the applicant had failed to prove conclusively that he had suffered any nonpecuniary damage as a result of having been deprived of his liberty DATE and DATE . It therefore dismissed his action and ordered him to pay the resulting court fees . The applicant appealed against that judgment on an unspecified date .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal and upheld the lower court 's findings . The reasons for its decision were , inter alia , the following :

“ Irrespective of the wrongful deduction of the time during which the [ applicant ] was serving his sentence ... in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , when sentencing the applicant to DATE and DATE imprisonment the [ trial ] court deducted DATE , DATE and DATE . This was the period DATE and DATE . The remaining [ period ] was DATE and DATE , which the applicant had to serve in view of the delivered final judgment ... in case no . CARDINAL of ORG . ”

The applicant filed a cassation appeal on an unspecified date .

In a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal and upheld the lower courts ' findings . In its reasoning , it indicated , inter alia , the following :

“ In the reasons [ for its decision of DATE , ORG ] stated that the intention of the [ trial ] court had been to deduct from the so determined combined sentence the period during which the [ applicant ] was remanded in custody . With this clarification it became clearer what the intention of the [ trial ] court had been . The GPE public prosecutor 's office made a justified assessment that the period stated in the judgment to be deducted , namely from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , included a period of DATE when the [ applicant ] served a sentence of ' deprivation of liberty ' under the judgment in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ... , which sentence was not combined with [ the sentence ] in case no . CARDINAL ... , and therefore was to be served separately . After deducting the period during which the [ applicant ] had served this first sentence the public prosecutor 's office rightly established that not all the sentence in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ... had been served and the [ applicant ] was recalled to prison on DATE to serve the remaining part of the sentence . There is no indication that he was detained in prison for a period longer than [ required ] for serving the sentence imposed . Accordingly , the contention that he suffered damage as a result is unfounded . The incorrect indication in the judgment of the period of [ remand in custody ] to be deducted does not change the stated intention [ of the trial court ] in respect of the length of the sentence of ' imprisonment ' . ”

The Code of Criminal Procedure ( DATE ) did not contain express provisions establishing a procedure to be followed in cases where there was a dispute as to whether a person had effectively served a prison sentence or not .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG provided that the court which had imposed the sentence would rule on all difficulties or uncertainties relating to the interpretation of its judgment . That did not include , however , issues concerning the execution of sentences and , in particular , the lawfulness of a continuing detention .

In general , the authority responsible for supervising the lawfulness of the execution of sentences was the competent public prosecutor ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG , section CARDINAL of LAW DATE and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . In particular , the public prosecutor was under a duty to order the release of every imprisoned person whom he or she found to have been unlawfully deprived of his or her liberty ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE ) . An appeal to a higher ranking public prosecutor 's office lay against the decisions of a public prosecutor .

The Code of Criminal Procedure ( DATE ) was replaced in DATE by a new code of the same name , while LAW DATE was replaced by a new act of the same name in DATE .

Prisoners may work during their time in prison , whereby DATE of employment are counted as them having served DATE of their sentences of imprisonment ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Execution of Sentences Act ) .

NORP The relevant parts of LAW ORG provide :

“ The ORG shall be liable for damage caused to [ private persons ] by the organs of ... the investigation , the public prosecution , the courts ... for :

NORP unlawful detention ... , if [ the detention order ] has been set aside for lack of lawful grounds ;

execution of an imposed sentence in excess of the set term or amount . ”

Compensation awarded under the LAW comprises all pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage which is the direct and proximate result of the illegal act or omission ( section CARDINAL ) . The aggrieved person must lodge an “ action ... against the [ entity ] ... whose illegal orders , acts or omissions have caused the alleged damage ” ( section CARDINAL ) . Compensation for damage caused from cases coming within TIME and CARDINAL of the LAW can only be sought under LAW and not under the general rules of tort ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

The liability of the investigating and prosecuting authorities may arise only in the exhaustively listed instances set forth in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW and not under the general rules of tort ( решение № CARDINAL от DATE г. по гр.д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON and ORG CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по т. гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG на ВКС ) . No reported cases have been identified of successful claims being made for damage stemming from acts of the investigating or prosecuting authorities which fall outside the list in section CARDINAL .

The reported case - law under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW is scant . In CARDINAL judgments ORG held that ORG liability arose where a detainee was remanded in custody or imprisoned for a period exceeding the final prison term subsequently imposed by the court of last instance ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL януари DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , PERSON г. о. на ВС и реш. № DATE от DATE г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON г. о. на ORG ) .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant is married with CARDINAL children . Prior to her application for an early - retirement pension she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called “ EWK ” pension .

Along with her application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning her daughter ’s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on DATE . The certificate stated that the child J. ( born in DATE ) suffered from a renal condition and scoliosis and that she was in need of her parent ’s constant care .

On DATE ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension as of DATE in the net amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .

ORG initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision . On DATE the applicant resigned from her fulltime job in a private company where she had been working since DATE . Afterwards , payment of the pension was resumed .

On DATE ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant ’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent . On DATE the doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .

NORP On DATE ORG issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant . By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant ’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . By virtue of the other decision , ORG reopened the proceedings , revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early - retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .

The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early - retirement pension . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant ’s original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the appeal . ORG concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant ’s child did not require her mother ’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care .

The applicant further appealed against the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the appeal .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant .

Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early - retirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of her right to an earlyretirement pension .

The applicant submitted that after the revocation of pension on DATE for DATE she had been unsuccessfully looking for job but had received no unemployment or other benefits from the ORG during that time .

DATE the applicant was offered a paid traineeship by the unemployment office in the amount of ORG CARDINAL per month . The applicant was afterwards employed from DATE to DATE .

The Government submitted that the applicant ’s husband and CARDINAL adult children were employed . They stated that in DATE the applicant earned LAW . Moreover , the applicant and her husband owned a small farm .

In addition , the Government submitted information as regards the various types of social benefits available in GPE . However , they did not specify which of those benefits , if any , were available in the applicant ’s situation .

Under the relevant laws currently in force , it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in DATE .

CARDINAL applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the ORG . The majority of the applicants form ORG ( ORG przez ZUS ) ( “ the Association ” ) , an organisation monitoring the practices of ORG in GPE , in particular in the ORG region .

Out of all applications lodged with the ORG , about twentyfour applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of ORG given in their case .

One hundred - and - CARDINAL applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases . ORG entertained and dismissed on the merits DATE appeals . In eightyone applications ORG refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require ORG to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts . In the remaining CARDINAL cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements .

NORP The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in the judgment in the case of GPE GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

NORP The social security scheme for farmers is regulated by ORG the DATE LAW ; ustawa o ubezpieczeniu społecznym rolników ) .

The reopening of the proceedings concerning the earlyretirement pension is regulated in CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE on the system of social insurance ( Ustawa o systemie ubezpieczeń społecznych ) , which at the relevant time read as follows :

“ The right to benefits or the amount of benefits will be re - assessed upon application by the person concerned or , ex officio , if , after the validation of the decision concerning benefits , new evidence is submitted or circumstances which had existed before issuing the decision and which have an impact on the right to benefits or on their amount are discovered . ”

On DATE a new subparagraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) a was added , which reads as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL shall apply respectively , if , after the validation of the decision it is discovered that the evidence that had been submitted did not give the right to a pension , disability pension or its amount . ”

A party to civil proceedings could , at the material time , lodge a cassation appeal with ORG against a judicial decision of a second - instance court . A party had to be represented by an advocate or a legal adviser .

Article CARDINAL of LAW as applicable at the material time listed the grounds on which a cassation appeal could be lodged . It read as follows :

“ The cassation appeal may be based on the following grounds :

CARDINAL ) a breach of substantive law as a result of its erroneous interpretation or wrongful application ;

CARDINAL ) a breach of procedural provisions , if that defect could significantly affect the outcome of the case . ”

Pursuant to LAW , having allowed a cassation appeal , could quash the challenged judgment in its entirety or in part and remit the case for re - examination . Where ORG failed to find non - conformity with the law , it dismissed the cassation appeal . According to Article CARDINAL if the cassation appeal was wellfounded ORG could also amend the impugned judgment and adjudicate on the merits .

On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG , asking for section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG ( LOC o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) to be declared unconstitutional in so far as it restricted the application of the DATE Ordinance to persons born before DATE . More specifically , the ORG submitted that the introduction of an age - limit in respect of persons taking care of a child , which in essence amounted to a deprivation of the right to a benefit , constituted a violation of the principle of equality set forth in LAW .

On DATE ORG ( KCARDINAL/CARDINAL ) declared the impugned section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE Law unconstitutional in so far as it restricted the application of the DATE Ordinance to persons born before DATE . ORG reiterated among other things the constitutional principle of acquired rights which guarantees particularly strong protection for the right to receive social welfare benefits .

On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG , asking for CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(a ) of the DATE Law to be declared unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the ORG to reopen ex officio proceedings relating to the grant of a pension or a disability pension on the basis of a new assessment of evidence which had already been submitted .

On DATE ORG ( GPE declared the impugned section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(a ) of the DATE Law unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the ORG to reopen such proceedings following a new assessment of evidence which had already been submitted .


Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel);Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

On DATE the applicant was charged with sexual assault of a minor and abduction of minors . He was remanded in custody . On DATE the applicant was released .

On DATE the applicant ’s trial started before ORG ( Okrožno sodišče – “ the ORG ” ) . On DATE the case was adjourned .

On DATE ORG ordered the redetention of the applicant .

On DATE a number of witnesses were heard and on DATE ORG again adjourned the applicant ’s trial due to the applicant ’s illness .

By decision of ORG dated DATE , the applicant was again released .

A hearing scheduled for DATE had to be adjourned sine die as the applicant was ill .

On DATE the applicant was accused of another sexual assault of a minor . An indictment was filed on DATE . The applicant entered a plea against the indictment which was rejected on DATE . On DATE ORG joined the CARDINAL sets of proceedings .

On DATE the public prosecutor requested further investigations on the ground that there was reasonable suspicion that the applicant had also criminally neglected and ill - treated a minor within the meaning of Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE a preliminary charge was filed in respect of the aforesaid acts . On DATE ORG decided to deal with all charges against the applicant in a single set of proceedings .

In the period from DATE to DATE ORG held several hearings .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of sexual offences on several counts . A combined prison sentence of DATE and DATE was imposed on the applicant . Both the applicant and the public prosecutor appealed .

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON sodišče ) rejected the applicant ’s appeal and increased the sentence to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant lodged a plea of nullity ( zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ) . ORG transmitted it to ORG sodišče ) , together with the file , on DATE . ORG dismissed this complaint on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the ORG judgment of CARDINAL Februrary CARDINAL . It was dismissed by ORG ( GPE sodišče ) on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a further constitutional complaint concerning ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He alleged , inter alia , a violation of LAW in the criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE ORG refused to send the case back to the lower courts for a new examination as it found no violation of the applicant ’s right to a fair hearing .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Renate Jaeger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Hildesheim .

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

In DATE ORG received CARDINAL anonymous reports . The applicant , who acted as a court - appointed liquidator , a judge and CARDINAL other liquidators were accused of collaborating to the detriment of other liquidators and creditors .

On DATE ORG opened preliminary investigations against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons . The applicant was suspected of having granted an undue benefit ( GPE ) and of embezzlement ( PERSON ) . The investigations concerned , inter alia , the judge 's alleged free stay at the applicant 's ski lodge and benefits in connection with the purchase of CARDINAL cars and CARDINAL computers . By a letter dated DATE the applicant was informed of the investigations .

In DATE , ORG ( and also GPE ) questioned numerous witnesses and public officials of the court DATE partly , moreover , with the help of GPE Interpol DATE , and searched , inter alia , the applicant 's business LOC , seized documents and computers and requested information from ORG . The applicant and his co - defendants , on their part , including after the submission of an interim report by ORG in DATE , made rather extensive submissions and repeatedly requested access to the files . ORG also decided on an appeal against the search of LOC ; proceedings against CARDINAL of the co - defendants were stayed .

On DATE the applicant requested the public prosecutor not to close the investigations and announced further submissions , which he submitted on DATE . In the meantime , further information on insolvency proceedings in respect of the applicant over DATE had been obtained .

On DATE ORG brought charges against the applicant , the judge and CARDINAL more lawyers . The applicant was accused of having granted undue benefits to a public official , namely , the accused judge .

On DATE CARDINAL judges of ORG indicated possible grounds for bias .

NORP In DATE , and also CARDINAL times in DATE , the applicant requested an extension of the time - limit set . CARDINAL of his co - defendants changed their legal representatives ; further access to the files was also granted .

NORP In DATE ORG challenged one of the judges on the grounds of bias . In DATE the Magdeburg ORG rejected this request . In DATE ORG quashed that decision and found that the judge was biased . In DATE CARDINAL more judges indicated that there were grounds for bias on their part . In DATE ORG decided that CARDINAL of the judges was to be excluded on the grounds of bias .

In DATE it decided to obtain an expert opinion and heard other witnesses . On DATE it commissioned the expert . In DATE it further amended its decision . On DATE the expert submitted his report .

DATE a number of memorandums , a report on the state of the investigations and further submissions by the accused were obtained .

On DATE the ORG decided to open the trial against the applicant as regards one offence ; it refused to open a trial against the applicant as regards the CARDINAL other offences .

On DATE ORG lodged an appeal against that decision in the part refusing to open proceedings . In DATE , when the reasoning was complete and the accused had made further submissions , the files were transferred to ORG .

On DATE that court considered that a trial should also be opened as regards CARDINAL of the other offences . It also decided that the main hearing was to be held before ORG .

In DATE and DATE the applicant appointed CARDINAL new legal counsel – both were also granted access to the files . PERSON , the parties agreed that hearings should take place as of DATE .

NORP In DATE ORG laid new charges with ORG against the applicant and the judge .

DATE and DATE TIME hearings took place . CARDINAL witnesses and also experts were heard . On DATE ORG acquitted CARDINAL of the lawyers .

On DATE it convicted the judge of tax evasion and acquitted the applicant and the co - defendants of all other charges . The written judgment , comprising CARDINAL pages , was sent to the parties in DATE .

On DATE ORG appealed . In DATE , following submissions by the accused , the files were transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment in the part acquitting the applicant and the others of the offences of granting an undue benefit and of taking a bribe ( PERSON ) and remitted the case to ORG .

NORP In DATE ORG received the files . In DATE the court and the parties agreed upon the dates of the hearings . In DATE the witnesses to be heard and the experts to be involved were designated .

DATE and DATE altogether CARDINAL hearings took place CARDINAL of them in DATE and CARDINAL witnesses were heard . Initially , the applicant had requested the court not to hold CARDINAL hearing per week .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of granting undue benefit and the judge of CARDINAL counts of taking a bribe . Shortly afterwards , the applicant 's legal counsel ceased taking instructions from the applicant ; his newly appointed lawyer then requested access to the files . On DATE ORG submitted the written judgment .

On DATE the applicant , as CARDINAL of his co - defendants had already done , lodged an appeal on points of law ( comprising CARDINAL pages ) ; he also appointed another legal counsel ; proceedings against CARDINAL of his co - defendants were stayed .

In DATE ORG decided not to file further submissions and transferred the files to ORG . In DATE the applicant filed further observations ; in DATE he again requested access to the files . On DATE , following a remittal of the files on account of a reputedly missing approval , ORG made his submissions .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG . It found that it could not be established that the applicant and his co - defendant had intentionally collaborated . On DATE the court delivered the written judgment .

In DATE the ORG contacted the parties ' legal representatives in order to arrange the hearings . In DATE the case was assigned to ORG ; in DATE ORG informed the court thereof . In DATE , at the applicant 's renewed request , ORG decided that CARDINAL judges and CARDINAL lay judges should decide upon the case .

From DATE to DATE CARDINAL hearings took place . On DATE one of the lay judges died . On DATE the ORG therefore cancelled all further hearings .

On DATE , after having been granted access to the files , the applicant requested that the proceedings be stayed on account of their excessive length pursuant to section CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW , which presupposes a procedural impediment . On DATE , following submissions by all the parties , ORG rejected this request as unfounded .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the refusal . DATE , ORG decided that another chamber should decide on the case .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the case for adjudication as being inadmissible on the ground that the decision under LAW ( a ) of LAW was an interlocutory decision which could not be challenged .

On DATE , following further submissions , ORG rejected the applicant 's objection ( PERSON ) against the refusal to stay the proceedings .

In DATE the applicant had twice requested the court to schedule a hearing DATE it turned out that hearings could only be scheduled as of CARDINAL DATE . Thereafter , the applicant and his co - defendant were granted access to the files . The applicant 's request to appoint a supplementary judge was rejected on DATE . A further appeal was to no avail .

Between DATE and DATE CARDINAL hearings took place . CARDINAL witnesses were heard and expert reports were obtained .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant and the co - defendants of both charges . It also found that he was entitled to compensation on the merits on account of the searches and the seizures and also ordered that the ORG bear the costs of the proceedings and the applicant 's necessary expenses .

NORP On DATE the judgment became final , ORG having withdrawn an appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to cover the costs of his legal representation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL .