TRAJKOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

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

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

Under the relevant legislation of ORG ) at the material time the banks were under a duty to deposit foreign currency funds in ORG .

The applicant had savings in foreign currency in a ORG owned bank - PERSON before the dissolution of the SFRY .

In DATE Komercijalna Banka paid an average DATE interest of CARDINAL for savings in ORG . DATE it paid an average DATE interest of CARDINAL for savings in GPE ( US$ ) .

In DATE ORG passed a decision to the effect that the withdrawal of funds from foreign currency savings accounts was possible only in instalments ( see relevant domestic law ) . The decision was repealed in DATE .

On DATE the Former GPE declared its independence . On CARDINAL DATE the Former GPE adopted its LAW and LAW under which the laws from the SFRY remained in force except for the laws regulating the organisation and the competence of ORG .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant ’s bank refused his request to allow him to withdraw his savings in foreign currency on the basis of the aforementioned decisions of ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s funds were transferred to a new account in the same bank which was also frozen . The applicant had ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and US$ MONEY in his new bank account ; and MONEY ( ORG ) and small amount of NORP Francs ( CHF ) , pounds sterling ( ORG ) and NORP Schillings ( ORG ) in his old bank account . Both bank accounts bore the same number .

On DATE the Former GPE introduced its own currency . The ORG reserves in foreign currency were GPE $ MONEY . There were CARDINAL , CARDINAL frozen bank accounts . The debt towards the holders of the accounts amounted to MONEY .

On DATE the ORG of the Former GPE adopted the LAW on Undertaking the Citizens’ Foreign Currency Deposits ( hereinafter referred to as LAW ) concerning the personal funds put on foreign currency bank accounts which had been deposited in ORG . Under LAW undertook the obligation to pay back the respective funds provided that they had been put in savings accounts in the banks with headquarters on its territory . The citizens were entitled to draw a limited amount out of their savings accounts . Government bonds were to be issued for the remaining sum .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim with ORG against the bank claiming back his money with the penalty interest . On DATE his civil claim was dismissed on the grounds that under the relevant SFRY regulation the banks were obliged to deposit the natural ORG funds in foreign currency in ORG , and that the withdrawal of the funds from the savings accounts was possible only for the purchase of apartments , or business LOC .

On DATE ORG adopted the LAW on the Guarantee by GPE and on the Funds and ORG Deposited in DATE and DATE ( hereinafter referred to as LAW ) which repealed LAW . LAW provided that the withdrawal of funds from the frozen foreign currency savings accounts was only possible for the purposes set forth in law ( see relevant domestic law ) .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He complained , inter alia , that funds put on frozen savings account should have borne the same interest , as thought they were put on a notice account , i.e. , deposited on a contractual basis without the right to withdraw for a certain period of time .

On DATE the ORG quashed ORG judgment , as it found , inter alia , that the court had not based its decision on the legislation adopted by the Former GPE and had not replied to the applicant ’s arguments in respect of the payable interest rate . The applicant ’s case was remitted for examination to ORG .

On DATE ORG found that all savings accounts in foreign currency had been frozen by the relevant decisions of ORG . The claims of the holders of the frozen savings accounts had been regulated by LAW of the Former GPE because the country was facing a difficult economic situation . The court rejected the applicant ’s claim on the ground that he had not wished to withdraw funds from his savings account in order to purchase an apartment , business LOC , or for other purposes set out by law .

As regards the interest rate , the court held that since the applicant had not concluded a contract with the bank for putting funds in a notice account he could not have received the same interest payable to the holders of such accounts .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It held , inter alia , that the applicant ’s allegations that the bank should have paid penalty interest were ill - founded , as the accounts had been frozen by virtue of law .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts’ decisions . It held that the applicable law in the applicant ’s case had been the DATE Act with its amendments . Finally , it concluded that the lower courts had rightly rejected the applicant ’s action since his request to withdraw money was not made for CARDINAL of the purposes provided by the LAW .

In DATE the ORG reserves in foreign currency had been GPE $ MONEY , whereas the debt towards the account holders had decreased by DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

On DATE the ORG adopted the LAW on the Manner of the Re - payment of ORG Deposits for which the [ Former GPE ( hereinafter referred to QUANTITY ) ( see relevant domestic law ) which repealed LAW . Under LAW the applicant ’s funds on his account were converted into euros . Their amount was QUANTITY . On DATE the applicant withdrew MONEY from his account . He was given Government bonds for the remaining sum .

Following the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE on the early buy out of the bonds which were mature in DATE , the applicant received MONEY .

Section CARDINAL provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A contract on a monetary deposit is concluded when the bank obliges itself to accept and the depositor obliges himself or herself to deposit in the bank a certain amount of money .

NORP By this contract the bank has the right to dispose of the deposited money and the obligation to return it in accordance with conditions determined in the contract . ”

Section CARDINAL , as far as relevant , provided as follows :

“ Unless otherwise agreed , ... the depositor has the right to dispose of the whole or a part of the balance of the deposit at any moment . ”

“ CARDINAL . Domestic natural and legal persons may keep foreign currency on a foreign currency savings account or foreign currency savings deposit at an authorised bank and use it for making payments abroad , in accordance with the provisions of this PERSON .

NORP The foreign currency on foreign currency savings accounts or foreign currency savings deposits are guaranteed for by the SFRY . ”

“ CARDINAL . Domestic natural persons may sell convertible currencies to an authorised bank or other authorised exchange office or they may deposit them in a foreign currency savings account or foreign currency savings deposit with an authorised bank .

Foreign currency kept in a foreign currency savings account or a foreign currency savings deposit may be used by domestic natural persons for payment of imported goods or services for his or her personal needs and the needs of close family members in accordance with the federal law governing foreign trade operations .

Foreign currency referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article may be used by domestic natural persons for the purchase of convertible bonds , for endowments for scientific and humanitarian purposes in GPE and for payment of a life insurance with an insurance company in GPE .

The National Bank of GPE shall regulate the operation of foreign currency savings accounts and foreign currency savings deposits of domestic and foreign natural persons . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG is obliged , following a request of an authorised bank , to receive into deposit foreign currency funds which has effectively been deposited by domestic and foreign natural persons in foreign currency savings accounts or foreign currency savings deposits after the entry into force of this PERSON .

NORP The methods and conditions for the deposition and withdrawal of foreign currency at the deposit of ORG shall be regulated by ORG on the proposal of ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL . On the basis of the deposited foreign currency ... the national banks shall authorise credits to banks in dinars in an amount equal to the deposited foreign currency , which shall be established on the basis of the average DATE exchange rate applicable at the end of the respective DATE when the foreign currency is deposited .

NORP When withdrawing foreign currency from the deposit , the bank is obliged to repay the national bank the used dinar credit in an amount equal to the amount of foreign currency withdrawn from the deposit , which shall be established on the basis of the exchange rate as applied when the same foreign currency was deposited . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Decision confirmed the purposes for which foreign currency could be used , as prescribed in the amended LAW .

Paragraph CARDINAL stated as follows :

“ Domestic natural persons may withdraw from their accounts foreign money , cheques and letters of credit for travelling to a foreign country in accordance with applicable regulations . ”

The DATE Decision was amended on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) by the addition of certain provisions , of which paragraph CARDINAL established the following rules on advance announcement of withdrawals :

“ Authorised banks shall execute orders to pay to domestic natural persons foreign currency deposited in their foreign currency accounts ... if such persons previously announced to the authorised banks , within the following time - limits , that they will use foreign currency in the following amounts :

an amount not exceeding DEM CARDINAL : within DATE for the first withdrawal ... and within DATE for any subsequent withdrawal ... ;

an amount not exceeding DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL : within DATE for the first withdrawal ... and within DATE for any subsequent withdrawal ... ;

an amount not exceeding DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL : within DATE ; and

an amount not exceeding DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL : within DATE . ”

Section CARDINAL , as far as relevant , provided as follows :

“ A bank is an independent self - governing financial institution , which administers deposits , credits and other banking business in accordance with the law . ”

Section CARDINAL stated as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A bank conducts its activities independently with a view to making profit based on the principles of liquidity , security and profitability .

Banks and other financial institutions are holders of all rights , obligations and responsibilities in legal payment operations with respect to both social and other funds at their disposal which they use in accordance with the nature and purpose of financial funds .

Banks and other financial institutions decide independently on the manner and form of organisation and association as well as on their activities in accordance with market conditions and profit - making , pursuant to the provisions of this and other laws . ”

“ The liability of banks shall be settled out of the bankruptcy estate in the following order :

claims of individuals ;

claims of ORG , the ORG and other creditors who are not the founders of the bank ;

claims of the founders of the bank . ”

DATE , as far as relevant , provides as follows :

No person may be deprived of his property or property rights , save [ for the protection of ] public interest as determined by law .

NORP If property is expropriated , or the property rights are restricted a just compensation not lower than the property ’s market value is guaranteed ... ”

LAW provides as follows :

Laws and other regulations may not have a retroactive effect , save if they are more favourable to the citizens . ”

LAW and DATE provides that the existing federal laws of the former GPE shall be in force in the Former GPE with the exception of laws regulating the organisation and competence of the NORP federal organs .

Article CARDINAL provides that all federal laws which are inconsistent with the NORP LAW shall be amended accordingly within DATE from DATE the LAW has been promulgated .

Under LAW the Former GPE was the guarantor for the payment of domestic and foreign currency bank savings and was under a duty to provide funds .

Under LAW the Former GPE was guarantor for the payment of funds put on foreign currency savings accounts on its territory which had been transferred to ORG by DATE .

Under section CARDINAL the banks were not allowed to convert funds from the frozen savings accounts in another currency . The funds yielded the interest , as determined by ORG .

Under LAW in order to insure the liquidity of the ORG funds all foreign currency savings accounts were frozen and the funds could be withdrawn , or spent only for the purposes set out by law .

Under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL the ORG was to provide funds for the re - payment of the debt .

Under section CARDINAL the account holders were allowed to withdraw the equivalent in domestic currency of DEM DATE from their frozen savings accounts provided that they had not had sufficient funds to meet their DATE needs .

Under section CARDINAL account holders were allowed to withdraw some funds from their savings accounts in foreign currency to meet medical , wedding , funerary and school expenses , or to re - pay long - term bank credits , to pay taxes , custom duties , taxes concerning the transfer of shares , to purchase ORG - owned agricultural land , machines for agriculture and for other purposes set out by law . ORG

Under section CARDINAL account holders were allowed to withdraw some funds from the frozen savings accounts in order to meet their medical and school expenses overseas , or purchase plane tickets .

Under LAW in accordance with the ORG ’s decision the ORG would advance a credit of PERCENT of the amount paid by the banks to the holders of the frozen accounts .

In DATE and DATE the payable interest rate for the frozen savings in ORG was CARDINAL , and in DATE and DATE it was CARDINAL .

In DATE the payable interest rate for the frozen savings in CARDINAL was CARDINAL ; in DATE it was DATE ; in DATE it was CARDINAL and in DATE it was CARDINAL .

Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the communal apartments may be purchased by denars received from the buy out of the funds from the frozen savings accounts .

It was possible to sell funds from the frozen savings accounts to persons who wished to purchase communal apartments or business LOC . Their price ( not lower than PERCENT ) was determined in accordance with the market demand .

Section CARDINAL provides that the state - owned shares in companies , banks and other state - owned securities may be purchased with funds drawn from the frozen foreign currency savings accounts .

Section CARDINAL provides that the law shall set out the manner and the procedure for the payment of funds put on foreign currency savings accounts which were frozen and for which the guarantor is the ORG .

Under section CARDINAL the banks shall convert funds from the frozen foreign currency savings accounts into euros in accordance with ORG exchange rate .

Under LAW the holders of the foreign currency savings accounts may withdraw PERCENT of funds from each of their savings accounts as from DATE provided that the amount of their funds exceeds CARDINAL .

Under LAW the bonds are negotiable and their value is expressed in TIME .

Under sections CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL the bonds shall be bought out in national currency twice a year within DATE period of time , as from DATE . The interest shall be paid off twice a year , as from DATE . The applicable exchange rate shall be the average exchange rate of ORG exchange list published on DATE of payment , or within DATE from DATE the bond becomes mature .

Under LAW the bonds may be used to pay off securities and concessions , to obtain shares in ORG - owned companies , to pay long - term rents , to purchase communal apartments , agricultural and construction land and to obtain shares in accordance with the Reconstruction of LAW .

Under section CARDINAL the ORG may buy out the bonds at any time in accordance with the ORG ’s decision .


No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

George Nicolaou;Ledi Bianku;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and currently lives in ORG .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several counts of fraud and incitement to murder committed in an organised criminal group .

On DATE ORG remanded him in custody , relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question . It attached importance to the serious nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant . In this connection the court noted that the applicant had admitted to having committed some of the offences of which he had been suspected , including incitement to murder . It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given the risk that he might go into hiding . As regards the latter , the court relied on the fact that he did not have a permanent place of residence in GPE and that he had already been hiding from the police . Finally , the court underlined that the applicant was a member of an organised criminal group and that some other members of that group were still at large which increased the risk that a detainee , if released , might obstruct the proceedings .

The applicant ’s appeal against the detention order , likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him , were unsuccessful .

NORP In DATE the applicant had a heart attack and had to be hospitalised CARDINAL times during DATE .

In the course of the investigation , the applicant ’s detention was extended on several occasions , namely on DATE ( to CARDINAL DATE ) , DATE ( to DATE ) and on an unspecified subsequent date . In their detention decisions the courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant ’s detention underlining the complexity of the case and the substantial volume of evidence to be examined . They also found no grounds warranting the applicant ’s release from detention as provided for by LAW . In particular , the courts observed that it resulted from medical reports that the applicant could be treated within a penitentiary facility .

On DATE ORG lodged a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant was charged with an incitement to murder as well as several counts of thefts and extortions committed while acting as a leader of an organised criminal group . The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges brought against several defendants .

On DATE the case was transferred to ORG .

In an opinion of CARDINAL DATE experts from the cardiology institute of ORG in GPE declared the applicant fit to participate in the proceedings , though limiting the duration of the hearings .

During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant ’s detention , namely on DATE ( to DATE ) , on unspecified subsequent dates and DATE ( to CARDINAL DATE ) . The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant ’s continued detention .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment . The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant and the Prosecutor appealed .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant be released from custody and placed under police supervision . The court also barred the applicant from leaving the country .

It appears that the appellate proceedings against the applicant are still pending .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre - trial detention ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing other , so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on charges of arson and uttering threats . On an unknown later date he was indicted before ORG .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained on remand .

On DATE ORG convicted him as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant appealed against his conviction .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings . On several occasions the applicant who was duly summoned , refused to appear at hearings . However , the court proceeded with the trial in his absence .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG again quashed the judgment and remitted the case .

On DATE the ORG again convicted the applicant as charged .

On DATE the applicant filed his appeal against this judgment . It appears that the proceedings are pending before ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged complaints with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before ORG had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction .

On DATE ORG gave a decision and dismissed the applicant ’s complaint .

On DATE ORG dismissed yet another complaint under LAW lodged by the applicant . The court considered that there had been no significant delays in the proceedings .

The applicant was also involved in several other sets of criminal and civil proceedings , in particular , proceedings concerning assaulting a judge and contempt of court . The proceedings were terminated respectively on DATE and DATE by ORG .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are stated in the ORG ’s decisions in cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII and the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL


The applicant , Mr GPE , is a NORP national living in PERSON . The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Vršanský , their Agent .

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

On DATE the applicant lodged an action for protection of his good name and reputation with ORG súd ) . He claimed that his registration as a collaborator of the former secret police in the files kept by ORG had no justification . The applicant further requested that the entry concerning his person should be deleted from the files .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to submit its memorial in the action . The defendant complied with the request on DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted his observations in reply . He extended his action and asked ORG to find that he had not been an agent of the former ORG .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to decide on his action .

On DATE the applicant complained to the president of ORG that there had been no progress in his case . On DATE the president of ORG admitted that there had been delays in the proceedings due to the transfer of the judge dealing with the case to another court .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG ( Ústavný súd ) alleging that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time .

On DATE the applicant complained about undue delays in the proceedings to the president of ORG ( PERSON súd ) .

On DATE the ORG held the first hearing in the case .

On DATE the applicant submitted documentary evidence to ORG .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant ’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays had been violated . It noted , in particular , that ORG had failed to decide on the action for protection of the applicant ’s personal rights within DATE after its introduction as required by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE the ORG held another hearing and on DATE it dismissed the applicant ’s action . The judgment stated that the relevant facts of the case were secret and that the evidence available indicated that the action was manifestly ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He alleged that ORG had not established all relevant facts of the case .

On DATE ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) transferred the case to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he wished to withdraw his action against ORG lodged on DATE and requested that he be exempted from the obligation to pay court fees .

On DATE the ORG quashed the first instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had withdrawn his action concerning his claims that ( i ) he had not been an agent of ORG , ( ii ) he had been erroneously entered in the files of ORG as a collaborator of the latter and ( iii ) the defendant be ordered to delete the entry concerning the applicant in the files of the former ORG . ORG further upheld ORG decision on the court fees of DATE and ordered the applicant to pay the defendant ’s fees . The decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to the president of ORG that the appellate court had failed to decide on his claim that he had not been an agent of the former ORG . The applicant alleged , with reference to his earlier submissions , that he had not withdrawn this part of his action and asked the court to proceed with it without delay .

On DATE the president of the ORG replied to the applicant that the proceedings had been discontinued on DATE and that there had been no undue delays in them .

On DATE ORG found unjustified the applicant ’s complaint about delays in the proceedings .

On DATE and on DATE the applicant filed a petition to ORG . He alleged that he had not withdrawn his claim submitted on DATE in extension of his original action . ORG had failed to proceed with that part of the action and thus caused delays in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the petition . It held that it was evident from ORG decision of DATE that the appellate court had interpreted the applicant ’s submission of DATE as concerning his action as a whole and that the proceedings had been discontinued in respect of all his claims . The applicant ’s expectation that the ORG would proceed with the examination of CARDINAL of his claims after the delivery of the decision of CARDINAL DATE was therefore ill - founded . The applicant ’s constitutional right to a hearing without delays could not have been therefore violated as a result of ORG failure to proceed with the case after DATE . ORG decision further stated that it had been open to the applicant to seek redress by means of an appeal on points of law after he had learned from the appellate court ’s decision that his submission of DATE had been misinterpreted .

Pursuant to LAW ( f ) of LAW , an appeal on points of law may be lodged against a decision of the court of appeal if a party to the proceedings was prevented from acting before the court due to a wrong court procedure . LAW ( CARDINAL ) provides that an appeal on points of law can be lodged within DATE after the appellate court ’s decision has become final .

In accordance with ORG case - law , the possibility of filing an appeal on points of law pursuant to LAW ( f ) of LAW extends to cases when the merits of an action have not been examined as a result of an erroneous action of the court .


CASE OF GONCHAROVA AND OTHER “PRIVILEGED PENSIONERS” CASES v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicants are pensioners who live in LOC . Before retirement they used to work in hazardous industry . They had a dispute with a pension authority about the scope of their privileged pensions and appealed to the GPE ’s district and town courts .

In DATE the courts held for the applicants and ordered the pension authority to recalculate the pensions . The courts based their finding on ORG . In DATE these judgments became binding and were executed .

On the pension authority ’s request , in DATE the district and town courts quashed their judgments due to discovery of new circumstances . The courts found , in particular , that the judgments had ignored the interpretation of ORG given by ORG in DATE and DATE .

NORP The applicants’ cases were remitted for a rehearing and eventually dismissed .


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

The applicant , PERSON . DATE , is a joint stock company registered in GPE and located in GPE . It was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent .

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

On DATE a public company , the Türkiye Süt PERSON ( the ORG dairy producer , hereafter referred to as the “ SEK ” ) , decided to partially expropriate a plot of land ( parcel no . CARDINAL ) owned by the applicant company and located in ORG , GPE .

On DATE the applicant company was officially notified of the ORG 's expropriation decision by a notice served through the notary public . It was indicated in the notice that expropriation compensation in the amount of MONEY ( TRL ) had been deposited in the applicant company 's name in a blocked bank account at the Alsancak Branch of ORG , a ORG - run bank .

The applicant subsequently sought the annulment of the expropriation . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's request and on DATE ORG upheld the administrative court 's decision .

On an unspecified date the applicant company commenced proceedings for additional compensation . On DATE the İzmir ORG ordered that the amount of compensation be increased by TRL CARDINAL . The judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE , neither of the parties having appealed . On CARDINAL DATE the additional expropriation was deposited in the same account at ORG in the applicant company 's name .

The applicant company subsequently lodged an action with ORG for the annulment of the parcel plan pertaining to the expropriated plot of land . On DATE ORG annulled the parcel plan as requested . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the administrative court . A new parcel plan was prepared on DATE , which was also annulled by ORG on DATE . It appears that there is presently no parcel plan in respect of the land in question .

On DATE the SEK commenced proceedings before ORG for the compulsory registration of the title of the expropriated land in its name . Following proceedings which lasted for DATE and involved CARDINAL examinations , on DATE ORG granted the suit . On DATE it rejected the applicant company 's rectification request . ORG held that the pending parcel plan pertaining to the relevant land did not preclude the registration of its title in the expropriating company 's name .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant company lodged an action for recovery of the expropriated land in accordance with LAW . CARDINAL ) . They argued that the public interest justifying expropriation in the present case had been lost as the land had not been put to use in accordance with the initial purpose of the measure . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request , holding that the conditions for restitution of expropriated land under LAW had not materialised . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment and on DATE it rejected the applicant company 's rectification request .

On DATE the SEK was merged with another public company , thereby losing its legal personality . Upon this merger , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant company applied for the reopening of the proceedings concerning the recovery and the compulsory registration of the land . They argued that the land was no longer required for public purposes as the expropriating public company had ceased to exist . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's request by CARDINAL separate judgments ( cases nos . PERSON and CARDINAL PERSON ) , holding that the conditions for reopening the proceedings had not been satisfied . According to the information in the case file , both judgments became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant company sent a letter to PERSON to inquire whether the expropriation compensation , together with the additional amount , had been deposited with the bank and , in the affirmative , whether they were entitled to have access to the money . On DATE they sent another letter to the bank , requesting it to expedite the reply . It is alleged that the bank never sent a written reply but orally informed the applicant company that they had no records regarding the requested information . The applicant company accordingly brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment ( tespit davası ) on DATE before ORG to establish whether the expropriation compensation had been deposited in a blocked account at ORG in its name or whether any payment had been otherwise made to it in compensation for the expropriation . The bank verified during the proceedings that the expropriation compensation had been deposited in a blocked account in the applicant company 's name at their ORG , but no attempt had been made to collect it . On DATE the firstinstance court dismissed the applicant company 's case , as the statements received from the bank had made it unnecessary to render a declaratory judgment . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court and on DATE it rejected the rectification request .


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

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

The applicant was a member of a gardening association and , on account of his membership , occupied a parcel of land on which he cultivated fruit and vegetables for the needs of his family .

On an unspecified date he was excluded from the association on grounds which are not known to the ORG . According to the statute of the association , disputes between the association and its members were to be resolved by ORG .

The applicant lodged an application with ORG and challenged the decision of the association ; however , his application was rejected on procedural grounds .

The applicant contested ORG decision and on DATE obtained a final judgment ordering ORG to examine his application on the merits . An enforcement warrant was issued on DATE and the judgment was enforced on DATE , when ORG examined the applicant ’s application on the merits and adopted a decision in his favour .

The applicant received ORG decision by mail on DATE .

The applicant did not inform the ORG about the enforcement of the judgment in his favour and it was only through the Government ’s observations that the ORG learned about the enforcement of the judgment .


Anatoly Kovler;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

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

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

On DATE the applicant , a policeman at the time , was returning to GPE from an official assignment in GPE , where he had been with CARDINAL other police officers PERSON , ORG When crossing the border , travelling in a regular civilian coach , they were checked by customs officials who found ORG cartons of cigarettes and CARDINAL bottles of liquor allegedly belonging to the police officers .

On DATE and DATE the police questioned the applicant , PERSON , ORG about the above event . The police also questioned the coach drivers , GPE and GPE , and a customs officer , GPE In addition , on DATE the applicant , T.P. , ORG provided further statements concerning the circumstances in which they had bought the cigarettes and liquor .

On DATE the GPE First - Instance Disciplinary Board of ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON , PERSON pravnih i kadrovskih poslova , Odsjek prvostupanjskog disciplinskog sudovanja GPE ) instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant on the ground that on DATE he had attempted to smuggle CARDINAL cartons of cigarettes and QUANTITY of liquor from GPE to GPE .

A hearing was held on DATE before ORG of ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON , PERSON disciplinski sud GPE ) in the presence of the applicant and his counsel . The applicant pleaded not guilty for smuggling goods although he admitted that he had brought certain cigarettes and alcohol from GPE but had not known the quantity or that it had been prohibited .

At the hearing the police reports on the witness statements of the coach drivers GPE and GPE and officer GPE were read out together with other evidence from the case file . Defence counsel asked for the written records of the oral statements from other police officers also to be admitted in evidence , which was allowed by the court . The applicant and his defence counsel made no objection as to the manner in which the evidence had been taken . However , defence counsel questioned the veracity of the statement given by customs officer GPE

On DATE the Zagreb First - Instance Disciplinary Court of ORG found that the applicant had attempted to smuggle the above - mentioned goods and sentenced him to a suspended sentence of dismissal from his duties .

Against the above decision , the Director of the Police ( Ravnatelj policije ) and the applicant lodged appeals on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , with ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON , PERSON pravnih i kadrovskih poslova , Odsjek drugostupanjskog disciplinskog sudovanja GPE ) . In his appeal , the applicant argued that the GPE First - Instance Disciplinary Court had misinterpreted some of the evidence and that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence .

On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the findings on the applicant ’s disciplinary liability but amended the sentence and ordered the applicant ’s dismissal .

The applicant lodged an action with ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) against the above decision on DATE , complaining about the outcome of the proceedings before the lower administrative bodies . He also argued that the witnesses should have been heard by the disciplinary court .

NORP On DATE the applicant was indicted in ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u GPE ) on charges of smuggling cigarettes and liquor on to the territory of GPE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action and upheld the decision of ORG , on the ground that there had been no flaws in the procedure or findings of the administrative bodies . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ After the assessment of the impugned decision [ of the second - instance disciplinary body ] , this court considers that all the relevant facts have been correctly established , that the relevant law was applied correctly and that there have been no flaws in the procedure .

It was undoubtedly established that on the relevant date , after he had finished his official assignment of deportation of foreign citizens to GPE and when entering the territory of GPE at the “ GPE ” border control check - point , the plaintiff had been controlled by the custom officers who had found that he had tried to smuggle CARDINAL cartons of cigarettes and QUANTITY of liquor with a foreign label to GPE , without having these goods declared to the custom service , although he had known that the import of that amount of such goods had not been allowed , namely that it had been limited . All these relevant facts were established based on the statements of the custom officers , the coach drivers and the plaintiff himself and therefore the complaint concerning the establishment of the relevant facts should be dismissed .

The substance of the plaintiff ’s action did not raise any issue as regards the lawfulness of the impugned decision , and therefore the action was dismissed as illfounded pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . ”

The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG on DATE ( ORG ) , reiterating the same arguments he had brought before ORG .

The Constitutional Court declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded on DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ ORG fully endorsed the findings and application of the relevant law by the second - instance disciplinary body and , by the impugned judgment , it dismissed the applicant ’s action against the second - instance decision .

The Constitutional Court finds that the complaints raised in the constitutional complaint essentially represent repetition of the complaints raised before ORG , without any substantiation of the alleged violations of LAW .

The applicant failed to show that ORG , in its procedure or decision , had violated the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the LAW or that it had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant domestic law . Therefore , the Constitutional Court finds that this case does not raise any issue of the applicant ’s human rights . Accordingly , there is no issue on which ORG should decide . ”

This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of the criminal charges of smuggling cigarettes and liquor on to the territory of GPE .

The relevant provision of LAW ( ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL ) provides :

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

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o policiji , ORG no . CARDINAL ) read as follows :

Disciplinary action shall be taken against police officers responsible for breaches of work discipline . ”

“ Other than those provided in the rules governing the conduct of civil servants , the following shall particularly be considered a serious breach of work discipline :

inappropriate conduct during or outside TIME of service ... ”


Violation of Art. 10;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

At the material time the applicants were the owners , executive directors , editors - in - chief , news directors and journalists of CARDINAL DATE newspapers published in GPE : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The publication of all CARDINAL newspapers was regularly suspended , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG ( the Prevention of Terrorism Act ) , by various Chambers of ORG , DATE and DATE , for periods ranging from DATE in respect of various news reports and articles . The impugned publications were deemed to be propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation , the ORG / ORG - GEL , as well as the approval of crimes committed by that organisation and its members .

In the first case against ORG on DATE , the trial judge considered that the content of certain reports and articles contained elements of propaganda , the approval of terrorist crimes and had identified officials who risked terrorist attack , contrary to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG . Their content thus exceeded the permissible limits of LAW . Moreover , the offences had not been limited to a single issue of the newspaper , but had been continuous . Consequently , he was authorised by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) to suspend the publication and distribution of the periodical for DATE .

In the case against ORG on DATE , the newspaper was suspended for DATE , not by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , but because its owners , journalists and content were the same as those of PERSON , whose publication and distribution had been suspended for DATE by a court decision of CARDINAL DATE .

Neither the applicants nor their representative participated in these ex parte procedures , and their written objections to the suspension orders were dismissed . Consequently , the orders were executed .

The applicant PERSON , the owner of ORG , was prosecuted under sections DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , as well as LAW of LAW , for disseminating propaganda in favour of the aforementioned organisation , approving crimes committed by that organisation and its members , and identifying officials with anti - terrorist duties as targets , in respect of various articles published in their newspaper ( case no . GPE ) . PERSON was convicted and fined CARDINAL new NORP liras ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

The applicant PERSON , the executive director of ORG and PERSON , was similarly prosecuted . Her first case concerning the former newspaper was disjoined from that of PERSON PERSON . Her second case ( no . PERSON ) involved another applicant , ORG , the owner of PERSON and ORG . They were charged under sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , as well as ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code .

ORG was prosecuted on CARDINAL other occasions on similar charges ( case nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Another applicant , PERSON , the owner and executive director of PERSON , was prosecuted for the same offences under sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG and LAW .

According to the information in the case file , all these prosecutions are still pending at first instance , except for that against PERSON Gürbüz , which is apparently still pending before ORG .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE reads as follows :

“ The press is free and shall not be censored . The establishment of a publishing company shall not be subject to prior permission or the deposit of a financial guarantee .

The ORG shall take the necessary measures to ensure freedom of the press and freedom of information .

As regards restrictions on freedom of the press , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW are applicable .

Anyone who writes or prints any news or articles which threaten the internal or external security of the ORG or the indivisible integrity of the ORG with its territory and nation , which are aimed at inciting offences , riot or insurrection , or which refer to classified ORG secrets , and anyone who prints or transmits such news or articles to others for the above purposes , shall be held responsible under the law governing these offences . Distribution may be suspended as a preventive measure by the decision of a judge or , in the event that delay is deemed prejudicial , by the competent authority designated by law . The authority suspending distribution shall notify a competent judge of its decision within TIME . The order suspending distribution shall become null and void unless upheld by a competent judge within TIME .

No ban shall be placed on the reporting of events except by a judge 's decision designed to ensure the proper functioning of the judiciary , within the limits specified by law .

Periodical and non - periodical publications may be seized by the decision of a judge in the event of an ongoing investigation into or prosecution of offences prescribed by law and , in situations where a delay could endanger the indivisible integrity of the ORG with its territory and nation , national security , public order or public morals , and for the prevention of an offence , by order of the competent authority designated by law . The authority issuing the order to confiscate shall notify a competent judge of its decision within TIME . The order to confiscate shall become null and void unless upheld by the competent court within TIME .

The general common provisions shall apply to the seizure and confiscation of periodicals and non - periodicals for the purposes of criminal investigation and prosecution .

Publication of periodicals published in GPE may be temporarily suspended by order of the courts in the event of a criminal conviction on account of their containing material which undermines the indivisible integrity of the ORG with its territory and nation , the fundamental principles of the LOC , national security and public morals . Any publication which is clearly a continuation of a suspended periodical shall be prohibited and shall be seized following a decision by a competent judge . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Law no . ORG ) , amended by PERSON no . DATE , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . It shall be an offence , punishable by a term of imprisonment of DATE , to announce , orally or in the form of a publication , that terrorist organisations will commit an offence against a specific person , whether or not that person 's ... identity is divulged , provided that it is done in such a manner that he or she may be identified , or to reveal the identity of civil servants who have participated in anti - terrorist operations or to designate any person as a target .

It shall be an offence , punishable by a term of imprisonment of CARDINAL to DATE , to print or publish declarations or leaflets emanating from terrorist organisations .

NORP If any of the offences defined in the paragraphs above are committed through the press or the media , the owners and editors - in - chief of the press and media organs concerned who did not participate in the commission of the offence shall also be liable to a judicial fine equivalent to CARDINAL days ' imprisonment . However , the maximum limit of this punishment shall be the equivalent of DATE for editors - in - chief .

Periodicals whose content openly encourages the commission of offences within the framework of the activities of a terrorist organisation , approves of the offences committed by a terrorist organisation or its members or constitutes propaganda in favour of the terrorist organisation may be suspended for DATE as a preventive measure by decision of a judge or , if a delay is detrimental , on an instruction from a public prosecutor . The public prosecutor shall notify the judge of such instruction within TIME . If the judge does not approve the decision within TIME , the instruction to suspend publication shall become null and void . ”

On DATE the former President of GPE lodged a case with ORG ( case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) challenging the validity of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG . It had been argued , inter alia , that this section had created an unconstitutional penalty . On DATE ORG dismissed the case ( decision no . CARDINAL ) .

“ Any person who disseminates propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of DATE . Where this offence is committed through the press or the media , the sentence shall be increased by CARDINAL . Moreover , the owners and editors - in - chief of the press and media organs concerned who did not participate in the commission of the offence shall also be liable to a judicial fine equivalent to CARDINAL ' imprisonment . However , the maximum limit of this punishment shall be the equivalent of DATE for editors - in - chief . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Law no . DATE ) read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person who abets commission of an offence shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of DATE if the offence is punishable by an aggravated life sentence and DATE where the offence is punishable by a life sentence . Punishment is reduced by CARDINAL in all other circumstances . However , in the latter case the punishment can not exceed DATE .

( CARDINAL ) A person is deemed to have abetted commission of an offence in the following circumstances :

( a ) Encouragement to commit an offence ... ”

“ Any person who approves of an offence committed , or praises a person on account of an offence he or she has committed , shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of DATE . ”

“ Where CARDINAL of the offences proscribed by Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL is committed through the press or the media , the sentence shall be increased by CARDINAL . ”


Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and he is currently imprisoned in GPE .

On DATE criminal complaints were brought against him by ORG for procuring and repeated rape .

In DATE , on an unspecified date , ORG of the GPE

ORG decided to prosecute the applicant and remitted the case to ORG ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment ( judgment no . DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG challenging the First Instance court 's findings and its evaluation of the evidence .

By judgment dated CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's allegations ( judgment no . DATE ) .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . The appeal was set for hearing on DATE . It transpires from the case file that these proceedings are still pending .


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

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

The applicant graduated from ORG of PERSON in DATE . ORG were , at the time , the only institutions training the future teachers of elementary schools and all graduates were eligible for appointment to the public school system . After graduation the applicant moved to GPE where he worked as a teacher of NORP language at the elementary school of GPE from DATE untill DATE .

In DATE he returned with his wife and CARDINAL children to live permanently in GPE . On DATE he applied to ORG and Religion asking to be appointed as a teacher to a NORP public school . The appointments were made according to a seniority list comprising all persons having the necessary qualifications , mainly a degree from a ORG . The immediate result of his application should have been his registration in the list , so that he could be appointed when his turn would come .

On DATE the Ministry rejected his application and returned his documents because the applicant was a NORP ’s Witness . ORG indicated that according to an opinion of ORG , it was prohibited for persons believing in religions or dogmas other than ORG to be appointed as teachers .

DATE Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL was enacted and explicitly provided in section CARDINAL that persons believing in religions or dogmas other than ORG were eligible for appointment as teachers . Immediately after the enactment of that law the applicant resubmitted his application asking to be registered in the list of DATE . However , the Ministry registered him on the DATE list .

By DATE all those who were on the DATE list had been appointed , but not those who were on the DATE list . By DATE the applicant realised that , with the pace the appointments were made , he would not be appointed at all . In effect , PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL provided that no one over DATE could be appointed as a teacher and the applicant would become DATE in DATE .

On DATE he applied to ORG asking to be considered as registered in the DATE list , which would have resulted in his immediate appointment .

On DATE his application was rejected on the ground that Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL had no retroactive effect , so the applicant was not eligible for registration on the DATE list .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG asking it to quash the decision rejecting his application .

By judgment CARDINAL of DATE ORG dismissed the application . It held that the authorities had correctly applied Law DATE which introduced an entirely new provision regarding the appointment of non - NORP teachers . Law DATE was not intended to interfere with the seniority lists of the past . Any possible violations of LAW or LAW on religious freedom occurred in DATE and should have been challenged at that time .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He maintained that PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL did not introduce an entirely new provision but instead tried to remedy the illegal practice of the authorities to exclude all non - NORP from employment in the public education system . If it were to be construed as not having retroactive effect , this would constitute by itself a new and direct violation of the LAW and the LAW .

By judgment CARDINAL of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on the ground that the refusal of the authorities in DATE did not constitute an executory administrative act , but it was a mere repetition of the initial refusal of DATE and the subsequent registration in the DATE list and as such could not be subjected to judicial review . In particular , ORG held that : “ Since the applicant challenged neither the initial refusal of his request nor his subsequent registration in the seniority list of DATE , which contained an omission to register him in the list of DATE , the final decision of the Minister of ORG ... has not an executory character and the applicant ’s action against it must be dismissed as inadmissible ... ” .

LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Primary education and kindergarten teachers of another dogma or religion who are candidates for appointment will be appointed and placed in public primary schools with CARDINAL teaching posts ... as the case may be , provided that they meet the qualifications of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law DATE .

In the cases of the above - mentioned paragraph , these teachers will not teach the course of religion , except to students believing in the same dogma or religion , provided that the said course is included in the curriculum .

The teachers of paragraph CARDINAL may also be appointed to primary schools and kindergartens with CARDINAL teaching post , if they are students of the same dogma or religion attending that school or kindergarten . ”


Violation of Art. 8;Just satisfaction reserved

The applicant , who is the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of GPE , was born in DATE . Her official residence is in GPE but she lives in the GPE area most of the time .

As a member of Prince PERSON ’s family , the applicant is the president of certain humanitarian or cultural foundations , such as ORG or ORG of ORG , and also represents the ruling family at events such as ORG or the opening of the International Circus Festival . She does not , however , perform any function within or on behalf of the ORG of GPE or any of its institutions .

Since DATE the applicant has been trying – often through the courts – in a number of NORP countries to prevent the publication of photos about her private life in the tabloid press .

The photos that were the subject of the proceedings described below were published by the ORG publishing company in the NORP magazines PERSON and ORG , and by the ORG publishing company in the NORP magazine ORG .

These photos show her with the actor PERSON at the far end of a restaurant courtyard in FAC . The first page of the magazine refers to “ The most tender photos of her romance with PERSON ( “ PERSON zärtlichsten PERSON mit Vincent ” ) and the photos themselves bear the caption “ These photos are evidence of the most tender romance of our time ” ( “ NORP Fotos sind der Beweis für die zärtlichste PERSON unserer Zeit ” ) .

The first photo shows her on horseback with the caption “ PERSON and the blues . Her life is a novel with innumerable misfortunes , says the author PERSON ( “ PERSON die GPE . PERSON ein LOC unzähligen PERSON , sagt Autor Roig ” ) .

The second photo shows her with her children PERSON and PERSON .

The photos are part of an article entitled “ I do n’t think I could be a man ’s ideal wife ” ( “ PERSON , dass ich die ideale PERSON ” ) .

The first photo shows her canoeing with her daughter PERSON , the second shows her son PERSON with a bunch of flowers in his arms .

The third photo shows her doing her shopping with a bag slung over her shoulder , the fourth with PERSON in a restaurant and the fifth alone on a bicycle .

The sixth photo shows her with PERSON and her son PERSON .

The seventh photo shows her doing her shopping at the market , accompanied by her bodyguard .

The article is entitled “ Pure happiness ” ( “ Vom einfachen GPE ” ) .

These photos show the applicant on DATE in Zürs / Arlberg . The accompanying article is entitled “ PERSON ... a woman returns to life ” ( “ PERSON ... eine PERSON kehrt ins GPE ” ) .

CARDINAL photos show her with Prince PERSON DATE PERSON at a horse show in FAC . The accompanying article is entitled “ The kiss . Or : they are not hiding anymore ” ( “ PERSON . PERSON : jetzt verstecken sie sich GPE ” ) .

CARDINAL other photos show her leaving her house in GPE with the caption “ Out and about with PERSON in GPE ” ( “ PERSON unterwegs in GPE ” ) .

These photos show the applicant on the front page with Prince PERSON DATE PERSON and on the inside pages of the magazine playing tennis with him or both putting their bicycles down .

The sequence of photos published in ORG magazine ( issue no . CARDINAL ) shows the applicant at ORG , dressed in a swimsuit and wrapped up in a bathing towel , tripping over an obstacle and falling down . The photos , which are quite blurred , are accompanied by an article entitled “ Prince PERSON DATE played fisticuffs and Princess PERSON fell flat on her face ” ( “ PERSON DATE haute auf den NORP und PERSON fiel auf die NORP ” ) .

On DATE the applicant sought an injunction in ORG ( ORG ) against any further publication by

the ORG publishing company of the first series of photos on the ground that they infringed her right to protection of her personality rights ( ORG ) , guaranteed by LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) , and her right to protection of her private life and to the control of the use of her image , guaranteed by sections CARDINAL et seq . of ORG ( Kunsturhebergesetz – “ LAW ” – see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG granted the application only in respect of the distribution of the magazines in GPE , in accordance with the rules of private international law ( section CARDINAL of LAW to LAW in ORG ) read in conjunction with LAW .

With regard to the distribution of the magazines in GPE , however , ORG reiterated that it was NORP law which applied . Under section PERSON ) no . CARDINAL of LAW , the applicant , as a figure of contemporary society “ par excellence ” ( eine “ absolute ” Person der GPE ) , had to tolerate this kind of publication .

ORG held that she had failed to establish a legitimate interest ( berechtigtes ORG ) justifying an injunction against further publication because , where figures of contemporary society “ par excellence ” were concerned , the right to protection of private life stopped at their front door . All the photos of the applicant had been taken exclusively in public places .

The applicant appealed against that judgment .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and set aside the injunction against subsequent publications in GPE .

Indeed , like ORG , ORG found that the applicant was a contemporary figure “ par excellence ” and therefore had to tolerate publication without her consent of the photos in question , which had all been taken in public places . Even if the constant hounding by photographers made her daily life difficult , it arose from a legitimate desire to inform the general public .

The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG ( ORG ) allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part , granting her an injunction against any further publication of the photos that had appeared in ORG magazine ( issue no . CARDINAL of DATE ) showing her with PERSON in a restaurant courtyard on the ground that the photos interfered with her right to respect for her private life .

ORG held that even figures of contemporary society “ par excellence ” were entitled to respect for their private life and that this was not limited to their home but also covered the publication of photos . Outside their home , however , they could not rely on the protection of their privacy unless they had retired to a secluded place – away from the public eye ( in eine örtliche PERSON ) DATE where it was objectively clear to everyone that they wanted to be alone and where , confident of being away from prying eyes , they behaved in a given situation in a manner in which they would not behave in a public place . Unlawful interference with the protection of that privacy could therefore be made out if photos were published that had been taken secretly and/or by catching unawares a person who had retired to such a place . That was the position here , where the applicant and her male companion had withdrawn to the far end of a restaurant courtyard with the clear aim of being out of the public eye .

However , ORG dismissed the remainder of her appeal on the ground that , as a figure of contemporary society “ par excellence ” , the applicant had to tolerate the publication of photos in which she appeared in a public place even if they were photos of scenes from her daily life and not photos showing her exercising her official functions . The public had a legitimate interest in knowing where the applicant was staying and how she behaved in public .

NORP The applicant then appealed to ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) , submitting that there had been an infringement of her right to the protection of her personality rights ( LAW read in conjunction with LAW ) .

In the applicant ’s submission , the criteria established by ORG regarding the protection of privacy in respect of photos taken in public places did not effectively protect the free development of the personality , be it in the context of private life or family life . Those criteria were so narrow that in practice the applicant could be photographed at any time outside her home and the photos subsequently published in the media .

Given that the photos were not used genuinely to inform people , but merely to entertain them , the right to control the use of one ’s image in respect of scenes from private life , which had been recognised by the case - law of ORG , prevailed over the right – also guaranteed by LAW to freedom of the press .

In a landmark judgment of DATE , delivered after a hearing , ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part on the ground that the publication of the CARDINAL photos in issues nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG magazine , dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE , featuring the applicant with her children had infringed her right to the protection of her personality rights guaranteed by LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , reinforced by her right to family protection under LAW . It referred the case to ORG on that point . However , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal regarding the other photos .

The relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows :

“ The appeal is well - founded in part .

II .

The decisions being appealed do not fully satisfy the requirements of LAW read in conjunction with LAW .

The provisions of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the PERSON [ GPE – Copyright Act ] on which the civil courts based their decisions in the present case are , however , compatible with LAW .

Under LAW of LAW , general personality rights are guaranteed only within the framework of the constitutional order . The provisions concerning the publication of photographical representations of persons listed in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the PERSON are part of that constitutional order . They derive from an incident which at the time caused a scandal ( photos of GPE on his deathbed ... ) and from the ensuing politico - legal debate sparked off by this incident ... , and aim to strike a fair balance between respect for personality rights and the community ’s interest in being informed ...

Under LAW , first sentence , of the PERSON , pictures can only be disseminated or exposed to the public eye with the express approval of the person represented . Pictures relating to contemporary society are excluded from that rule under section PERSON ) of the PERSON ... Under section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON , however , that exception does not apply where the dissemination interferes with a legitimate interest of the person represented . The protection by degrees under these rules ensures that they take account of the need to protect the person being represented as well as the community ’s desire to be informed and the interest of the media which satisfy that desire . That much has already been established by ORG ...

( b ) In the instant case regard must be had , in interpreting and applying sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the PERSON , not only to general personality rights , but also to the freedom of the press guaranteed by LAW , second sentence , of LAW in so far as the provisions in question also affect those freedoms .

The fact that the press fulfils the function of forming public opinion does not exclude entertainment from the functional guarantee under LAW . The formation of opinions and entertainment are not opposites . Entertainment also plays a role in the formation of opinions . It can sometimes even stimulate or influence the formation of opinions more than purely factual information . Moreover , there is a growing tendency in the media to do away with the distinction between information and entertainment both as regards press coverage generally and individual contributions , and to disseminate information in the form of entertainment or mix it with entertainment ( ‘ infotainment’ ) . Consequently , many readers obtain information they consider to be important or interesting from entertaining coverage ...

Nor can mere entertainment be denied any role in the formation of opinions . That would amount to unilaterally presuming that entertainment merely satisfies a desire for amusement , relaxation , escapism or diversion . Entertainment can also convey images of reality and propose subjects for debate that spark off a process of discussion and assimilation relating to philosophies of life , values and behaviour models . In that respect , it fulfils important social functions ... When measured against the aim of protecting press freedom , entertainment in the press is neither negligible nor entirely worthless and therefore falls within the scope of application of fundamental rights ...

The same is true of information about people . Personalisation is an important journalistic means of attracting attention . Very often it is this which first arouses interest in a problem and stimulates a desire for factual information . Similarly , interest in a particular event or situation is usually stimulated by personalised accounts . Additionally , celebrities embody certain moral values and lifestyles . Many people base their choice of lifestyle on their example . They become points of crystallisation for adoption or rejection and act as examples or counter - examples . This is what explains the public interest in the various ups and downs occurring in their lives .

As regards politicians , this public interest has always been deemed to be legitimate from the point of view of transparency and democratic control . Nor can it in principle be disputed that it exists in respect of other public figures . To that extent it is the function of the press to show people in situations that are not limited to specific functions or events and this also falls within the sphere of protection of press freedom . It is only when a balancing exercise has to be done between competing personality rights that an issue arises as to whether matters of essential interest for the public are involved and treated seriously and objectively or whether private matters , designed merely to satisfy the public ’s curiosity , are being disseminated ...

( c ) NORP The decision of ORG largely stands up to an examination of its compatibility with the constitutional rules .

( aa ) ORG can not be criticised under constitutional law for assessing the conditions of application [ Tatbestandsvoraussetzungen ] of section PERSON ) no . CARDINAL of the PERSON according to the criterion of the community ’s interest in being informed and deciding on that basis that the photos showing the appellant outside her representative function in the Principality of GPE were lawful .

Under section PERSON ) no . CARDINAL of the PERSON , the publication of pictures portraying an aspect of contemporary society are exempted from the obligation to obtain the consent of the person concerned within the meaning of section CARDINAL of the PERSON . Judging from the drafting history of the LAW ... and from the meaning and purpose of the words used , the provision in question takes into consideration the community ’s interest in being informed and the freedom of the press . Accordingly , the interpretation of this element [ Tatbestandsmerkmal ] must take account of the interests of the public . Pictures of people who are of no significance in contemporary society should not be made freely accessible to the public : they require the prior consent of the person concerned . The other element that is affected by fundamental rights , that of a ‘ legitimate interest’ for the purposes of section FAC ) of the PERSON , concerns DATE and this must be stressed at the outset – figures of contemporary society and can not therefore take sufficient account of the interests of the freedom of the press if these have previously been neglected when the circle of the persons concerned was defined .

It is in keeping with the importance and scope of the freedom of the press , and not unreasonably restrictive of the protection of personality rights , that the concept of contemporary society referred to in section PERSON ) no . CARDINAL of the PERSON should not only cover , in accordance with a definition given by the courts , events of historical or political significance , but be defined on the basis of the public interest in being informed ... The kernel of press freedom and the free formation of opinions requires the press to have , within legal limits , sufficient margin of manoeuvre to allow it to decide , in accordance with its publishing criteria , what the public interest demands , and the process of forming opinion to establish what amounts to a matter of public interest . As has been stated , entertaining coverage is no exception to these principles .

Nor should ORG be criticised for including in the ‘ domain of contemporary society’ , within the meaning of section PERSON ) no . CARDINAL of the PERSON , pictures of people who have not only aroused public interest at a certain point on the occasion of a particular historical event but who , on account of their status and importance , attract the public ’s attention in general and not just on the odd occasion . Account should also be taken in this regard of the fact that , compared to the situation at the time LAW was passed , increased importance is given DATE to illustrated information . The concept of a ‘ figure of contemporary society “ par excellence ” ’ [ ‘ ORG Person der GPE ] , often employed in this respect in the case - law and legal theory , does not conclusively derive from statute or LAW . If , as was done by ORG and ORG , it is interpreted as a shortened expression designating people whose image is deemed by the public to be worthy of respect out of consideration for the people concerned , it is irreproachable from the point of view of constitutional law at least as long as a balancing exercise is carried out between the public ’s interest in being informed and the legitimate interests of the person concerned .

General personality rights do not require publications that are not subject to prior consent to be limited to pictures of figures of contemporary society in the exercise of their function in society . Very often the public interest aroused by such figures does not relate exclusively to the exercise of their function in the strict sense . It can , on the contrary , by virtue of the particular function and its impact , extend to information about the way in which these figures behave generally – that is , also outside their function – in public . The public has a legitimate interest in being allowed to judge whether the personal behaviour of the individuals in question , who are often regarded as idols or role models , convincingly tallies with their behaviour on their official engagements .

If , on the other hand , the right to publish pictures of people considered to be figures of contemporary society were to be limited to their official functions , insufficient account would be taken of the public interest properly aroused by such figures and this would , moreover , favour a selective presentation that would deprive the public of certain necessary judgmental possibilities in respect of figures of socio - political life , having regard to the function of role model of such figures and the influence they exert . The press is not , however , allowed to use every picture of figures of contemporary society . On the contrary , section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON gives the courts adequate opportunity to apply the protective provisions of LAW read in conjunction with LAW ...

( bb ) In theory the criteria established by ORG for interpreting the concept of ‘ legitimate interest’ used in section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON are irreproachable from the point of view of constitutional law .

According to the decision being appealed , the privacy meriting protection that must also be afforded to ‘ figures of contemporary society “ par excellence ” ’ presupposes that they have retired to a secluded place with the objectively recognisable aim of being alone and where , confident of being alone , they behave in a manner in which they would not behave in public . ORG accepted that there had been a breach of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the PERSON where this type of picture was taken secretly or by catching the person unawares .

The criterion of a secluded place takes account of the aim , pursued by the general right to protection of personality rights , of allowing the individual a sphere , including outside the home , in which he does not feel himself to be the subject of permanent public attention – and relieves him of the obligation of behaving accordingly DATE and in which he can relax and enjoy some peace and quiet . This criterion does not excessively restrict press freedom because it does not impose a blanket ban on pictures of the DATE or private life of figures of contemporary society , but allows them to be shown where they have appeared in public . In the event of an overriding public interest in being informed , the freedom of the press can even , in accordance with that case - law authority , be given priority over the protection of the private sphere ...

ORG properly held that it is legitimate to draw conclusions from the behaviour adopted in a given situation by an individual who is clearly in a secluded spot . However , the protection against dissemination of photos taken in that context does not only apply where the individual behaves in a manner in which he would not behave in public . On the contrary , the development of the personality can not be properly protected unless , irrespective of his behaviour , the individual has a space in which he can relax without having to tolerate the presence of photographers or cameramen . That is not in issue here , however , since , according to the findings on which ORG based its decision , the first of the conditions to which protection of private life is subject has not been met .

Lastly , there is nothing unconstitutional , when balancing the public interest in being informed against the protection of private life , in attaching importance to the method used to obtain the information in question ... It is doubtful , however , that the mere fact of photographing the person secretly or catching them unawares can be deemed to infringe their privacy outside the home . Having regard to the function attributed to that privacy under constitutional law and to the fact that it is usually impossible to determine from a photo whether the person has been photographed secretly or caught unawares , the existence of unlawful interference with that privacy can not in any case be made out merely because the photo was taken in those conditions . As , however , ORG has already established in respect of the photographs in question that the appellant was not in a secluded place , the doubts expressed above have no bearing on the review of its decision .

( cc ) However , the constitutional requirements have not been satisfied in so far as the decisions of which the appellant complains did not take account of the fact that the right to protection of personality rights of persons in the appellant ’s situation is strengthened by LAW those ORG intimate relations with their children .

( dd ) The following conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing considerations with regard to the photographs in question :

The decision of ORG can not be criticised under constitutional law regarding the photos of the appellant at a market , doing her shopping at a market accompanied by her bodyguard or dining with a male companion at a well - attended restaurant . The first CARDINAL cases concerned an open location frequented by the general public . The third case admittedly concerned a well - circumscribed location , spatially speaking , but CARDINAL in which the appellant was exposed to the other people present . It is for this reason , moreover , that ORG deemed it legitimate to ban photos showing the appellant in a restaurant garden , which were the subject of the decision being appealed but are not the subject of the constitutional appeal . The presence of the appellant and her companion there presented all the features of seclusion . The fact that the photographs in question were evidently taken from a distance shows that the appellant could legitimately have assumed that she was not exposed to public view .

Nor can the decision being appealed be criticised regarding the photos of the appellant alone on horseback or riding a bicycle . In ORG view , the appellant had not been in a secluded place , but in a public one . That finding can not attract criticism under constitutional law . The appellant herself describes the photos in question as belonging to the intimacy of her private sphere merely because they manifest her desire to be alone . In accordance with the criteria set out above , the mere desire of the person concerned is not relevant in any way .

The CARDINAL photos of the appellant with her children require a fresh examination , however , in the light of the constitutional rules set out above . We can not rule out the possibility that the review that needs to be carried out in the light of the relevant criteria will lead to a different result for CARDINAL or other or all the photos . The decision must therefore be set aside in that respect and remitted to ORG for a fresh decision .

( d ) The decisions of ORG and ORG resulted in a violation of fundamental rights by limiting to the home the privacy protected by LAW read in conjunction with LAW in accordance , moreover , with a rationale that was in keeping with the case - law at the time . The decisions in question do not need to be set aside , however , since the violation complained of has been remedied in part by ORG and the remainder of the case remitted to that court .

Following the remittal of the case to ORG in connection with the CARDINAL photos that had appeared in ORG magazine ( issue no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE ) showing the applicant with her children , the NORP publishing company undertook not to republish the photos ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant reapplied to ORG , seeking an injunction preventing the ORG publishing company from republishing the second series of photos on the ground that they infringed her right to protection of her personality rights , guaranteed by LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , and her right to protection of her private life and to the control of the use of her image , guaranteed by sections CARDINAL et seq . of LAW .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the application , referring in particular to the grounds of ORG judgment of DATE .

The applicant appealed against that judgment .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal for the same reasons .

As ORG did not grant leave to appeal on points of law to ORG , the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal directly with ORG , relying on her earlier submissions .

In a decision of DATE , ORG , ruling as a panel of CARDINAL judges , refused to entertain the appeal . It referred in particular to ORG judgment of DATE and to its own landmark judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant reapplied to ORG , seeking an injunction preventing the ORG publishing company from republishing the third series of photos on the ground that they infringed her right to protection of her personality rights , guaranteed by Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , and the right to protection of her private life and to the control of the use of her image , guaranteed by sections CARDINAL et seq . of ORG .

The applicant submitted , among other things , a sworn attestation by the director of ORG to the effect that the swimming baths in question were a private establishment , access to which was subject to a high fee and strictly controlled and from which journalists and photographers were debarred unless they had the express permission of the owner of the establishment . The fact that the photos were very blurred showed that they had been taken secretly , at a distance of QUANTITY , from the window or roof of a neighbouring house .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the application , referring in particular to the grounds of ORG judgment of DATE . The court stated that ORG had to be considered as an open - air swimming pool that was open to the public , even if an entry fee was charged and access restricted .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal for the same reasons .

ORG found that a swimming pool or beach was not a secluded place and that the photos showing the applicant tripping over an obstacle and falling down were not such as to denigrate or demean her in the public ’s eyes .

As ORG did not grant the applicant leave to appeal on points of law to ORG , the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal directly with ORG , relying on her earlier submissions .

ORG held that the ordinary courts had properly found that ORG was not a secluded place and that the photos of the applicant wearing a swimsuit and falling down were not capable of constituting an infringement of her right to respect for her private life .

II . RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND NORP LAW

The relevant provisions of LAW are worded as follows :

“ The dignity of human beings is inviolable . All public authorities have a duty to respect and protect it . ”

“ Everyone shall have the right to the free development of their personality provided that they do not interfere with the rights of others or violate the constitutional order or moral law [ Sittengesetz ] . ”

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his or her opinions in speech , writing and pictures and freely to obtain information from generally accessible sources . Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting on the radio and in films shall be guaranteed . There shall be no censorship .

These rights shall be subject to the limitations laid down by the provisions of the general laws and by statutory provisions aimed at protecting young people and to the obligation to respect personal honour [ ORG der persönlichen GPE ] . ”

“ CARDINAL . Marriage and the family enjoy the special protection of the ORG .

NORP The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent on them . The ORG community shall oversee the performance of that duty . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG provides that images can only be disseminated with the express approval of the person concerned .

Section PERSON ) no . CARDINAL of that LAW provides for exceptions to that rule , particularly where the images portray an aspect of contemporary society ( GPE aus dem Bereich der GPE ) on condition that publication does not interfere with a legitimate interest ( berechtigtes ORG ) of the person concerned ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

The full text of this resolution , adopted by ORG on DATE , is worded as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG recalls the current affairs debate it held on the right to privacy during its DATE session , DATE after the accident which cost FAC GPE her life .

NORP On that occasion , some people called for the protection of privacy , and in particular that of public figures , to be reinforced at the NORP level by means of a convention , while others believed that privacy was sufficiently protected by national legislation and LAW , and that freedom of expression should not be jeopardised .

NORP In order to explore the matter further , ORG Human Rights organised a hearing in GPE on DATE with the participation of public figures or their representatives and the media .

The right to privacy , guaranteed by LAW , has already been defined by the ORG in the declaration on mass communication media and human rights , contained within LAW ( DATE ) , as ‘ the right to live one ’s own life with a minimum of interference’ .

In view of the new communication technologies which make it possible to store and use personal data , the right to control one ’s own data should be added to this definition .

The ORG is aware that personal privacy is often invaded , even in countries with specific legislation to protect it , as people ’s private lives have become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media . The victims are essentially public figures , since details of their private lives serve as a stimulus to sales . At the same time , public figures must recognise that the special position they occupy in society - in many cases by choice - automatically entails increased pressure on their privacy .

Public figures are persons holding public office and/or using public resources and , more broadly speaking , all those who play a role in public life , whether in politics , the economy , the arts , the social sphere , sport or in any other domain .

It is often in the name of a CARDINAL - sided interpretation of the right to freedom of expression , which is guaranteed in LAW , that the media invade people ’s privacy , claiming that their readers are entitled to know everything about public figures .

Certain facts relating to the private lives of public figures , particularly politicians , may indeed be of interest to citizens , and it may therefore be legitimate for readers , who are also voters , to be informed of those facts .

It is therefore necessary to find a way of balancing the exercise of CARDINAL fundamental rights , both of which are guaranteed by ORG : the right to respect for one ’s private life and the right to freedom of expression .

The ORG reaffirms the importance of every person ’s right to privacy , and of the right to freedom of expression , as fundamental to a NORP society . These rights are neither absolute nor in any hierarchical order , since they are of equal value .

NORP However , the ORG points out that the right to privacy afforded by LAW should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities , but also against interference by private persons or institutions , including the mass media .

The ORG believes that , since all member states have now ratified LAW , and since many systems of national legislation comprise provisions guaranteeing this protection , there is no need to propose that a new convention guaranteeing the right to privacy should be adopted .

The ORG calls upon the governments of the member states to pass legislation , if no such legislation yet exists , guaranteeing the right to privacy containing the following guidelines , or if such legislation already exists , to supplement it with these guidelines :

( i ) the possibility of taking an action under civil law should be guaranteed , to enable a victim to claim possible damages for invasion of privacy ;

( ii ) editors and journalists should be rendered liable for invasions of privacy by their publications , as they are for libel ;

( iii ) when editors have published information that proves to be false , they should be required to publish equally prominent corrections at the request of those concerned ;

( iv ) economic penalties should be envisaged for publishing groups which systematically invade people ’s privacy ;

( v ) following or chasing persons to photograph , film or record them , in such a manner that they are prevented from enjoying the normal peace and quiet they expect in their private lives or even such that they are caused actual physical harm , should be prohibited ;

( vi ) a civil action ( private lawsuit ) by the victim should be allowed against a photographer or a person directly involved , where paparazzi have trespassed or used ‘ visual or auditory enhancement devices’ to capture recordings that they otherwise could not have captured without trespassing ;

( vii ) provision should be made for anyone who knows that information or images relating to his or her private life are about to be disseminated to initiate emergency judicial proceedings , such as summary applications for an interim order or an injunction postponing the dissemination of the information , subject to an assessment by the court as to the merits of the claim of an invasion of privacy ;

( viii ) the media should be encouraged to create their own guidelines for publication and to set up an institute with which an individual can lodge complaints of invasion of privacy and demand that a rectification be published .

It invites those governments which have not yet done so to ratify without delay ORG with regard to ORG .

The ORG also calls upon the governments of the member states to :

( i ) encourage the professional bodies that represent journalists to draw up certain criteria for entry to the profession , as well as standards for self - regulation and a code of journalistic conduct ;

( ii ) promote the inclusion in journalism training programmes of a course in law , highlighting the importance of the right to privacy vis - à - vis society as a whole ;

( iii ) NORP foster the development of media education on a wider scale , as part of education about human rights and responsibilities , in order to raise media users’ awareness of what the right to privacy necessarily entails ;

( iv ) facilitate access to the courts and simplify the legal procedures relating to press offences , in order to ensure that GPE rights are better protected . ”