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

The applicant ’s family owned a plot of land with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . QUANTITY in the very centre of GPE , at the junction of FAC and FAC . The applicant is CARDINAL of the heirs of the owners of that property .

By virtue of the Decree of DATE on the Ownership and Use of Land in GPE ( “ the DATE Decree ” ) the ownership of all private land was transferred to GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s family filed an application for the grant of the right of temporary ownership ( własność czasowa ) of the plot of land pursuant to section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Decree ( “ the DATE application ” ) . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) refused the application and ruled that , consequently , the ownership of all the buildings located on the plot of land at issue be transferred to the ORG . On DATE the competent Minister upheld that decision .

In the meantime , the Law of DATE on ORG entered into force on DATE . According to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of that PERSON , the ownership of all property previously held by the local governments was transferred to the ORG .

In DATE the ORG constructed ORG on the part of the plot which was formerly owned by the applicant ’s family .

Following the re - establishment of the local government in GPE , on CARDINAL DATE the ownership of a part of the plot of land previously owned by the applicant ’s family was transferred to GPE by operation of the law .

At present , the plot of land of QUANTITY m , formerly owned by the applicant ’s family , is divided into CARDINAL separate parts . The first part with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m. is owned by GPE and constitutes a part of a larger plot no . CARDINAL with a surface area of QUANTITY m. The second part with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m is owned by the ORG and administered by ORG ( ORG ) . Currently , the latter plot is leased to a certain company and used as a car park .

On DATE ORG PERSON ) issued a decision declaring that as of CARDINAL DATE the “ ORG was granted the right of perpetual use of the plot of land no . CARDINAL with a surface area of QUANTITY m located at no . CARDINAL FAC . On the strength of the same decision the ownership of the buildings attached to that plot , including LOC , was transferred to the “ LOC company against the payment of a fee . On the relevant date the company was owned by GPE .

On DATE PERSON , another heir of the applicant ’s family , filed with ORG ( Minister PERSON i GPE ) an application for annulment of the administrative decisions refusing the grant of the temporary ownership . On DATE the Minister quashed the decisions of ORG of DATE and the relevant Minister of DATE . Consequently , the competent administrative authorities were required to rule on the DATE application for the grant of the right of perpetual use , which replaced the former temporary ownership . The applicant and other heirs of the previous owners were , as their legal successors , the parties to the subsequent proceedings .

Following the above decision , on DATE the Minister of Planning and Construction awarded the applicant and other heirs compensation in the amount of PLZ CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It appears that that decision has not been enforced .

On DATE the Minister of Planning and Construction instituted ex officio proceedings with a view to having his earlier decision of DATE annulled . On DATE the Minister declared the decision of DATE null and void . On DATE the applicant and PERSON made an application to the President of ORG ( Prezes PERSON i PERSON ) for reconsideration ( wniosek o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy ) of the decision of DATE . On DATE the President of that ORG upheld the decision of DATE . The applicant appealed against that decision and the earlier decisions of the Minister of Planning and Construction to ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE ORG ordered that the enforcement of the decision of DATE be stayed .

On DATE ORG quashed both contested decisions , considering that there were no grounds on which to hold that the decision of DATE could be declared null and void . As a consequence of that judgment , the DATE application for the grant of the right of perpetual use filed by the applicant ’s family was yet to be examined .

On DATE ORG ) decided ex officio to stay the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings instituted by ORG in DATE ( see above ) . The applicant appealed against that decision . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to ORG , inquiring about the progress in the proceedings following the decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE . He demanded an explanation about the delays in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings , considering that they had become devoid of purpose . It observed that the DATE application for the grant of the right of perpetual use had been already dismissed , and that the application for the annulment of the latter decision had failed . The applicant appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case for re - examination .

On DATE the applicant filed with ORG a complaint about the inactivity of ORG .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings before ORG concerning an appeal against the decision of the President of ORG of DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG to issue a decision in the case by DATE .

On DATE , following the judgment of ORG of DATE , the applicant requested the GPE Mayor to grant him the right of perpetual use .

In DATE the Mayor of GPE began negotiations with the applicant and other heirs of the former owners with a view to renouncing their claims to the plot of land at issue in exchange for an alternative plot . On DATE the applicant and other heirs accepted the Mayor ’s proposal . However , on DATE the Deputy Mayor of GPE informed them that he had to withdraw from the negotiations as there were grounds on which the DATE application could be dismissed .

On DATE ORG refused the application . It observed that the plot of land of specific surface and shape , which had been the subject of the application , was not in existence at the time of the issuing of the present decision . Moreover , it noted that on part of the plot of land formerly owned by the applicant ’s family , the ORG had constructed LOC . Thus , it considered that it was not possible to mark off the plot of land which was the subject of the application . In addition , ORG noted that the “ ORG company had been granted the right of perpetual use of the plot of land which partly overlapped with the plot of land at issue by virtue of a decision of DATE .

On DATE PERSON , CARDINAL of the heirs of the applicant ’s family , lodged an appeal against the decision of ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the contested decision .

On DATE PERSON lodged an appeal with ORG against the decision of ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the impugned decision and the earlier decision of ORG . It considered that section DATE Decree laid down CARDINAL requirements which had to be met in order to grant the right of perpetual use of land , i.e. the filing of the application in time and the compatibility of the intended use of the land with the local development plan . ORG observed that the relevant application had been lodged in time . However , the administrative authorities had not at all examined the second requirement laid down in DATE Decree , but had instead based their decisions on grounds which were not provided in the relevant law . Lastly , ORG instructed the administrative authorities to examine the heirs’ intentions as to the use of the land at issue . It further emphasised that if the intended use was compatible with the local development plan , the administrative authorities were under an obligation to grant the application .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant and other heirs that due to the complex nature of the case a decision would be issued by DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a complaint about the inactivity of ORG .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he intended to use the plot of land at issue in accordance with the local development plan .

On DATE the Mayor of GPE , who in the meantime had assumed the competences of ORG , issued his decision in the case . He refused the application , considering that the use of the plot by the heirs of the former owners would not be compatible with the local development plan adopted on DATE . In particular , the Mayor found that CARDINAL part of the plot at issue was designated partly for walkways and green areas , and partly for the junction of FAC and FAC which was an important area for public transport in the whole city centre . In respect of the other part of the plot at issue , the Mayor considered that ORG stood on it and that it was not feasible to detach from the existing larger plot a part which was owned by the applicant ’s family . He also had regard to LAW ( ustawa o gospodarce nieruchomościami ) which provided that in the case of a plot of land with a building situated on it , the grant of the right of perpetual use of the plot was to be effected with the simultaneous acquisition of the buildings located on the plot . However , the building of LOC was owned by the “ LOC company and could not be split so as to reflect the borders of the estate formerly owned by the applicant ’s family . Furthermore , the application could not be granted because the right of perpetual use of the plot of land which partly overlapped with the plot at issue , had been awarded to the “ PERSON ” company on the strength of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the Mayor of GPE to ORG . On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a complaint about the inactivity of ORG . It appears that the proceedings are pending .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to grant him the right of perpetual use of the plot of land owned by ORG . On DATE he lodged with the GPE Governor a complaint about the inactivity of ORG .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to provide the relevant documents concerning the status of the property at issue . On DATE the relevant documents were submitted to ORG . On DATE and DATE ORG requested ORG to submit some additional documents .

On DATE the applicant filed with the GPE Governor a second complaint about the inactivity of ORG .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to provide information as to the use of the plot of land at issue as provided in the local development plan . The requested information was submitted on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the GPE Governor ordered ORG to issue a decision in the applicant ’s case within DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that due to the complex nature of the case a decision would be issued by DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to grant the right of perpetual use in respect of the plot owned by ORG , considering that that plot was designated in the local development plan for a street , i.e. for public use .

The applicant appealed against that decision .

On DATE the GPE Governor upheld the decision of ORG . PERSON lodged an appeal against the decision of the Governor with ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the GPE Governor of DATE and the earlier decision of ORG as they were issued in breach of section DATE Decree . It considered that the use of the plot of land at issue by the successors of the former owners would not be incompatible with the local development plan .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it would not be possible to conclude the proceedings within the time - limit specified in LAW due to the need to undertake further examination of the application . It appears that the proceedings are pending .

On DATE PERSON , CARDINAL of the heirs , filed with ORG an objection against the auction for the sale of shares in the “ ORG company .

On DATE the applicant made an application to ORG of Appeal for annulment of the decision of ORG of DATE ( see above part CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG refused to institute the proceedings . On DATE the applicant filed an application for reconsideration of that decision . On DATE ORG decided to stay the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings pending before ORG ( see part CARDINAL . above ) . On DATE ORG quashed its earlier decision of DATE . On DATE it refused that application . The applicant filed an application for reconsideration of the matter . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed its earlier decision and refused to institute proceedings for the annulment . The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings concerning the application for annulment of the Minister of Planning and Construction ’s decision of DATE . The proceedings were resumed on DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE on procedural grounds . Consequently , ORG was to examine the applicant ’s application for annulment again .

On DATE and DATE the applicant requested ORG to expedite the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG quashed its earlier decision of CARDINAL DATE and declared null and void the decision of ORG of DATE as having been issued in manifest breach of the law . It considered that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been issued in a flagrant violation of the rights of the heirs of the former owners , as their application for the grant of the right of perpetual use was pending at the material time . It further observed that the heirs’ claims to the plot of land formerly owned by their family had to be examined prior to the decision on the use of land by the “ ORG company .

In accordance with the Decree of DATE on the Ownership and Use of Land in GPE ( dekret o własności i użytkowaniu gruntów na obszarze QUANTITY st . PERSON , “ the DATE Decree ” ) the ownership of all land in GPE was transferred to GPE .

The CARDINAL Decree provided , in so far as relevant :

“ Section CARDINAL . Buildings and other objects located on the land , which is being transferred to the municipality ’s ownership , remain the property of those who have owned them so far , unless specific provisions provide otherwise .

Section CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) The owner of a plot of land ... can within DATE after the taking of possession of the land by the municipality file a request to be granted ... the right to a perpetual lease ( wieczysta dzierżawa ) with a peppercorn rent ( czynsz symboliczny ) . ...

( CARDINAL ) The municipality shall grant the request if the use of the land by the former owner is compatible with its function set forth in the development plan ( plan zabudowania ) . ...

( CARDINAL ) In case the request is refused , the municipality shall offer the person entitled , as long as it has spare land in its possession , a perpetual lease of land of equal value , on the same conditions , or the right to construct on such land .

( CARDINAL ) In case no request , as provided for in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , is filed , or the former owner is for any other reasons not granted a perpetual lease or the right to construct , the municipality is obliged to pay compensation pursuant to LAW .

Section CARDINAL . In case the former owner is not granted the right to a perpetual lease or the right to construct , all buildings located on the land shall become the property of the municipality , which is obliged to pay , pursuant to LAW are fit to be used or renovated .

Section CARDINAL .

( CARDINAL ) The right to compensation begins to apply DATE after DATE of taking the land into possession by the municipality of GPE and expires DATE after that date . ... ”

Pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Law of CARDINAL DATE on ORG which entered into force on DATE , the ownership of all property previously held by the local governments was transferred to the ORG .

In DATE the local government was re - established . According to the section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW DATE the ownership of the land which had previously been held by ORG and which was within the administrative territory of municipalities , was transferred to the latter .

Under LAW of DATE introducing LAW ( prawo rzeczowe ) and LAW , the right to construct and the right to a perpetual lease could be transferred into temporary ownership ( własność czasowa ) .

Section CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on ORG ( Ustawa o gospodarce terenami w miastach i osiedlach ) replaced temporary ownership with the right of perpetual use ( użytkowanie wieczyste ) .

The right of perpetual use is defined in Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the DATE LAW as amended ( PERSON ) . It is an inheritable and transferable right in rem which , for DATE , gives a person the full benefit and enjoyment of property rights attaching to land owned by ORG or municipality . It has to be registered in the court land register in the same way as ownership . The transfer of that right , like the transfer of ownership , can be effected only in the form of a notarised deed , on pain of it being void ab initio . The “ perpetual user ” ( użytkownik wieczysty ) is obliged to pay ORG ( or the municipality , as the case may be ) an DATE fee which corresponds to a certain percentage of the value of the land in question .

In DATE Law on Transforming Perpetual Use Vested in Individuals into Ownership ( ustawa o przekształceniu prawa użytkowania wieczystego przysługującego osobom fizycznym w prawo własności ) was enacted . The law guarantees individuals who acquired perpetual use of property before DATE the right to have that right transformed into ownership . LAW ( CARDINAL ) of that law provides that individuals who acquired the right to perpetual lease LAW decree are entitled to such transformation free of charge , regardless of when they acquired their right to a perpetual lease . Requests for the transformation could have been submitted until DATE .

LAW lays down time - limits ranging from DATE to DATE for dealing with a case pending before an administrative authority . If these time - limits have not been complied with , the authority must , under LAW , inform the parties of that fact , explain the reasons for the delay and fix a new time - limit . Pursuant to LAW , if the case has not been handled within the time - limits referred to in ORG and DATE , a party to administrative proceedings can lodge an appeal to the higher authority , alleging inactivity . In cases where the allegations of inactivity are well - founded , the higher authority fixes a new term for handling the case and orders an inquiry in order to determine the reasons for the inactivity and to identify the persons responsible for the delay . If need be , the authority may order that measures be applied to prevent such delays in the future .

On DATE a new LAW DATE on ORG ( “ the DATE LAW ) came into force .

According to the provisions of LAW , a party to administrative proceedings may , at any time , lodge with ORG a complaint about inactivity on the part of an authority obliged to issue an administrative decision .

Section CARDINAL of the PERSON provides :

“ When a complaint alleging inactivity on the part of an administrative authority is well - founded , ORG shall oblige that authority to issue a decision , or to perform a specific act , or to confirm , declare , or recognise a right or obligation provided for by law . ”

Pursuant to LAW , the decision of ORG ordering an authority to put an end to its inactivity is legally binding on the authority concerned . If the authority has not complied with the decision , the court may , under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act , impose a fine on it and may itself give a ruling on the right or obligation in question .


Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13

The applicant is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE .

The applicant and his wife frequently travelled between various NORP countries . On DATE , the Chief Constable of GPE authorised the installation of covert recording devices at the applicant 's cottage and this was carried out on DATE . ORG for a further DATE surveillance was granted on DATE .

TIME of tapes were obtained between the period of DATE to DATE , on which latter date the applicant and his wife were arrested . The transcripts of the taped conversations made up the bulk of the case against the applicant .

At trial , the applicant 's defence alleged that the recorded discussions , which occurred while he and the others concerned were under the influence of drugs , were “ drug - crazed ramblings ” and challenged their admissibility . A “ voir dire ” took place from DATE to DATE , during which the defence made submissions concerning the procedure for authorisation of the surveillance and seeking inter alia to exclude irrelevant or prejudicial material under sections CARDINAL of ORG PACE ) . By agreement , the transcript evidence was reduced from CARDINAL to CARDINAL files and an agreed schedule was adopted by all counsel concerning the occasions on which the conversations occurred at the same time as drug taking . In summing up to the jury at the conclusion of the trial , the judge directed their attention to the fact that the supposedly incriminating statements taped at the cottage were or may have been the product of the participants ' intoxicated state and that it was for them to assess whether despite the drugs the defendants were expressing rational , genuine thoughts , real ideas , plans or arrangements .

On DATE , the applicant was convicted of charges inter alia of conspiracy to import controlled drugs and possession of controlled drugs in connection with importation of marijuana and cocaine from overseas . He was sentenced to a total of DATE imprisonment . A confiscation order was imposed on him on DATE in the sum of MONEY ( GBP ) .

On DATE , a single judge of ORG refused an extension of time to appeal against sentence and refused leave to appeal against conviction , noting that no satisfactory or sufficient reason had been given for DATE delay in lodging the application . The applicant 's renewed application was refused by ORG on DATE .

At the relevant time , ORG of DATE on the use of equipment in police surveillance operations provided that only chief constables or assistant chief constables were entitled to give authority for the use of such devices . The Guidelines were available in the library of ORG and were disclosed by ORG on application .

In each case , the authorising officer had to satisfy himself that the following criteria were met : ( a ) the investigation concerned serious crime ; ( b ) normal methods of investigation had been tried and failed , or had been , from the nature of things , unlikely to succeed if tried ; c ) there must have been good reason to think that the use of the equipment would be likely to lead to an arrest and a conviction , or where appropriate , to the prevention of acts of terrorism and d ) the use of equipment was operationally feasible .

The CARDINAL Act provides a statutory basis for the authorisation of police surveillance operations involving interference with property or wireless telegraphy . The relevant sections relating to the authorisation of surveillance operations , including the procedures to be adopted in the authorisation process , entered into force on CARDINAL DATE .

NORP Since DATE , these controls have been augmented by Part II of ORG ( “ RIPA ” ) . In particular , covert surveillance in a police cell is now governed by sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of RIPA . ORG also establishes a statutory Investigatory Powers Tribunal to deal with complaints about intrusive surveillance and the use of informants by the police .


In the general election of CARDINAL and DATE Mr PERSON stood as a candidate for ORG pour la démocratie française – UDF ) in the CARDINALth administrative district of GPE and was elected as a member of ORG .

On DATE the applicant submitted his campaign accounts to ORG .

ORG gave its decision on DATE . To the expenditure of MONEY ( ORG ) declared by the applicant it added a sum of ORG representing the cost of CARDINAL issues of a magazine called ORG ( “ Our GPE DATE ” ) that was published by PERSON between DATE , taking the view that “ there [ could ] be no doubt , regard being had to their dates , frequency and , more especially , content , that the publications [ had ] had an undeniable electoral purpose ” .

The ORG also added the cost of an opinion poll ( ORG CARDINAL ) conducted on CARDINAL DATE among voters in the CARDINALth administrative district that had been commissioned by ORG pour la République – RPR ) , on the grounds that “ the main purpose of the poll [ had been ] to determine who was the best candidate to put up against the outgoing NORP member of ORG and the poll [ had shown ] Mr PERSON to be at a clear advantage , with the result that he [ had been ] backed by both the ORG and the RPR ” . The poll “ also investigated voters’ expectations and was therefore designed to find out how the election campaign should be slanted , since the concerns expressed by the majority were addressed at length in the published election material [ referred to above ] ” .

As it also noted that the magazine CARDINAL Indépendant had campaigned in favour of CARDINAL candidates , including the applicant , ORG added CARDINAL of the cost of the DATE issue to his accounts ( FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

After deducting other sums , it thus assessed the expenditure in issue at ORG ORG and rejected the applicant ’s campaign accounts as they exceeded the statutory ceiling by ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It also referred the matter to the ORG pursuant to LAW .

On DATE Mr PERSON applied to the ORG d’Etat to have ORG decision quashed and reversed . His main contention was that , in breach of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW and the adversarial principle , ORG had added the cost of the opinion poll and the publications in issue to his campaign accounts without first giving him a hearing .

NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG d'Etat dismissed the application on the following grounds :

The contested decision , whereby ORG ... revised PERSON campaign accounts and , having found that the maximum permitted amount of election expenditure had been exceeded , referred the matter to ORG , can not be separated from the proceedings thus instituted before that body . That being so , no appeal lies against the decision to the administrative courts . Mr PERSON application is therefore inadmissible .

Applications were made to ORG on DATE by a voter in the CARDINALth administrative district , Mr M. , who maintained that the applicant had exceeded the statutory maximum amount of campaign expenditure , and on DATE by ORG .

On DATE Mr PERSON lodged a pleading . He asked ORG to stay the proceedings until the ORG d’Etat had ruled on the lawfulness of ORG decision and , in the alternative , to hold that his campaign expenditure had not exceeded the statutory ceiling and that he should not be disqualified from standing for election .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected PERSON request to stay the proceedings , disqualified him from standing for election for DATE from DATE and declared that he had forfeited his seat as a member of ORG . The decision reads as follows :

Mr PERSON request to stay the proceedings

Section CARDINAL of the Ordinance of DATE provides : ‘ When ruling on cases submitted to it , ORG has jurisdiction to consider all the issues and objections raised in the application ... ’ It is thus for ORG to rule on all the issues concerning Mr PERSON campaign accounts . That being so , his application to stay the proceedings can not be granted .

Mr PERSON election expenditure

ORG is an administrative authority and not a court . The view it takes when scrutinising a candidate ’s campaign accounts consequently can not prejudice the decision of ORG , the body that adjudicates upon the lawfulness of an election under LAW .

The inclusion of expenditure relating to the magazine ORG

... regard being had to the dates on which it was published , to the extent of its circulation and to its content , this magazine can be seen to be a vehicle for election propaganda . Issues DATE , however , contain numerous pages of general and local news which can not be directly linked with promoting the candidate or furthering his election programme . Accordingly , those pages must not be viewed as expenditure committed or incurred for election purposes within the meaning of LAW of LAW . That being so , they should not be included in the expenditure recorded in Mr PERSON campaign accounts .

On the other hand , other pages in those CARDINAL issues contain numerous photographs of the candidate or are made up of articles relating to topics addressed during his election campaign . Those pages consequently amount to election propaganda . This is true [ of ORG pages ... ] ... , which helped to promote the elected candidate . To that extent , the corresponding expenditure must be seen as coming within the expenditure referred to in the first paragraph of Article PERSON of LAW and must be included in the candidate ’s campaign accounts . Regard being had to the total cost of the publications concerned and the number of pages to be taken into account , the expenditure incurred under this head amounts to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

The inclusion of the cost of an opinion poll

It is clear from the inquiry into the facts that an opinion poll commissioned by the ORG was conducted in the CARDINALth constituency in GPE among a representative sample of voters . The questions asked related firstly to the voters’ main concerns , secondly to their voting intentions and thirdly to their appraisal of various political figures and groups .

The inquiry into the facts revealed that Mr PERSON then made use of the poll findings that related to voters’ expectations by choosing his campaign topics on the basis of voter concerns as shown by the findings . Both in issues CARDINAL of the magazine ORG and in various leaflets , he gave priority to the topics so identified . The findings were accordingly used to determine the thrust of the candidate ’s election campaign in the constituency .

The inclusion of the cost of part of issue CARDINAL of the magazine CARDINAL Indépendant

In issue CARDINAL of DATE the magazine CARDINAL GPE , which has a circulation of CARDINAL , published an article by PERSON , the mayor of the district , expressing his support for the CARDINAL opposition candidates standing , including Mr PERSON . That article , which was intended to underline the unity in the local majority party DATE before the first round of the election , was an integral part of the whole publication , which thus in its entirety amounts to election propaganda . Responsibility for it must also be attributed to the CARDINAL candidates who benefited from it . Consequently , CARDINAL of the cost of the publication ( FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) must be included as expenditure in Mr PERSON campaign accounts , as ORG and Political Funding ruled .

The inclusion of the cost of various propaganda expenses

PERSON criticised Mr PERSON for omitting various propaganda expenses . It is clear from the very details provided by the candidate that some expenditure was omitted ... On the basis of the figures submitted by Mr PERSON himself , the total amount to be taken into account for the purposes of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL is thus ORG CARDINAL .

It follows from all the foregoing that the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL must be added to PERSON Pierre - Bloch ’s expenditure . The total amount of his expenditure is thus ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and the applicant has consequently exceeded the maximum permitted amount of campaign expenditure by ORG .

On DATE Mr PERSON lodged an application with ORG seeking rectification of clerical errors which , in his submission , vitiated the decision of DATE . He maintained that ORG had counted some of his campaign expenditure twice and that it had not ruled on his request that the opinion poll should be left out of account . ( Mr PERSON argued that Mr PERSON had failed to prove that he was lawfully in possession of the opinion poll report , marked “ confidential exclusive property of client ” ) .

The applicant lodged a pleading containing further arguments on DATE . He argued that ORG decision did not contain its President ’s signature or that of the secretary - general or the rapporteur ; furthermore , the rapporteur ’s name had not been given . He added that he had also been denied any opportunity to lodge final submissions as he had not been informed when his case would be heard .

Neither the applicant nor his counsel was informed of the date of the hearing , even though in a letter of DATE the lawyer had asked the secretary - general for the date .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s submissions based on procedural and formal defects on the ground that “ in an application seeking rectification of a clerical error it is not permissible to challenge the assessment of the facts of the case or their legal classification or the formal or procedural manner in which the decision [ to which the application relates ] was rendered ” . It also reduced the amount of propaganda expenditure to ORG CARDINAL and set the amount of expenditure incurred by the applicant at ORG CARDINAL , consequently materially amending its decision of CARDINAL DATE , while stating that “ this rectification [ was ] not such as to call in question Mr PERSON disqualification from standing for election or the forfeiture of his seat ” .

In a decision of DATE ORG , having deducted the accountant ’s fees from the amount assessed by ORG , set the amount which PERSON was to pay the ORG pursuant to the last paragraph of Article PERSON of LAW at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to quash this decision . He alleged , in particular , that ORG had breached LAW .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed his application as follows :

It appears from the inquiry into the facts that the impugned decision was taken by ORG , which is not a court . It is thus not required to afford the procedural safeguards provided for in [ LAW ] . The applicant is not , however , thereby deprived of the right – which he exercised – to have his case heard by a tribunal . Accordingly , the argument based on a violation of LAW ... must fail .

... in its decision of DATE , as amended on DATE , ORG found that Mr PERSON had exceeded the maximum permitted amount of expenditure in his campaign in the CARDINALth constituency in GPE for the general election on DATE and DATE by FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Pursuant to the statutory provisions cited above , ORG and Political Funding was under a duty to require the applicant to pay the amount of the excess . The other grounds relied on by the applicant in order to challenge the decision are consequently invalid and must be rejected .

The election expenditure of ( in particular ) parliamentary candidates must not exceed a statutory ceiling ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Within DATE of the ballot in which the election was won , each candidate who took part in the first round must file his campaign accounts , certified by an accountant , at the prefecture . The accounts are then sent to ORG ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

ORG and Political Funding has CARDINAL members appointed for DATE by decree : CARDINAL members or former members of the ORG d’Etat nominated by the Vice - President of the PERSON d’Etat after consultation of its ORG ; CARDINAL members or former members of ORG nominated by the President of ORG after consultation of its ORG ; CARDINAL members or former members of ORG nominated by the President of ORG after consultation of its divisional presidents ( Article PERSON ) .

The Commission publishes the campaign accounts ( LAW ) .

It approves them and , “ after adversarial proceedings ” , rejects or amends them ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Where the amount of a declared item of expenditure is less than the usual price , the ORG calculates the difference and adds it to the campaign expenditure after asking the candidate to provide any evidence relevant to an assessment of the facts . The same procedure is applied in respect of all direct or indirect benefits , services and gifts in kind received by the candidate ( Article PERSON ) .

If the accounts have not been filed within the prescribed period , if they have been rejected or if – where appropriate after amendment DATE they show that the maximum permitted amount of election expenditure has been exceeded , the Commission refers the case to the body that adjudicates election disputes ( Articles PERSON and FAC ) , which is ORG in respect of the election of members of ORG ( Article CARDINAL of the LAW ) .

ORG has CARDINAL members , appointed for a non - renewable DATE term . CARDINAL of them are appointed by the President of the Republic , CARDINAL by the Speaker of ORG and CARDINAL by the Speaker of the ORG . In addition to those CARDINAL members , former presidents of the Republic are life members of ORG as of right . The President of ORG is appointed by the President of the Republic . In the event of a tie , he has the casting vote ( LAW ) .

Within ORG there are CARDINAL sections , each comprising CARDINAL members drawn by lot . Lots are drawn separately among PERSON the members appointed by the President of the Republic , those appointed by the Speaker of the ORG and those appointed by the Speaker of ORG .

Each year the Constitutional Council draws up a list of CARDINAL deputy rapporteurs from among the middle - ranking members of the ORG d’Etat and ORG ; they are not entitled to vote ( section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG DATE “ the GPE ) .

In addition to the application of Article L.O. CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the election of a member of ORG may be challenged before ORG within DATE of the election results being announced , by means of a written application by anyone on the electoral roll of the constituency in which the election was held or by anyone who stood for election ( sections CARDINAL–CARDINAL of the Ordinance and LAW of CARDINAL DATE as amended by ORG decisions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE – “ the Rules of Procedure ” ) .

As soon as he receives an application , the President allocates it to CARDINAL of the sections to examine in order to prepare the case for hearing and appoints a rapporteur , who may be selected from among the deputy rapporteurs ( sections CARDINAL–CARDINAL of the Ordinance ) .

Where the application is not declared inadmissible or manifestly ill - founded ( section CARDINAL of the Ordinance ) , the member of ORG whose election is being challenged and , where applicable , his substitute are given notice of it . They may designate a person of their choice to represent them and to assist them with the various steps in the proceedings . The section of ORG allots them a period of time for inspecting the application and the documents at the ORG ’s secretariat and producing their written observations ( section CARDINAL of the Ordinance and Rule CARDINAL ) .

When a case is ready for hearing , the section hears the report of the rapporteur . In this he sets out the issues of fact and law and submits a draft decision ( Rule CARDINAL ) . The section discusses his proposals and refers the case to ORG for its ruling on the merits ( Rule CARDINAL ) .

The President of ORG determines when a case is to be entered in its list . Proceedings in ORG are not public , and only since ORG decision of DATE amending the Rules have applicants and members of ORG whose election is in issue been able to seek leave to address the ORG . The secretary - general and the rapporteur for the case attend the ORG ’s deliberations . The rapporteur drafts the decision taken as a result of those deliberations ( Rule CARDINAL ) .

ORG gives its ruling in a reasoned decision , which indicates the members who took part in the sitting at which it was taken . The decision is signed by the President , the secretary - general and the rapporteur ( section CARDINAL of the Ordinance and Rule CARDINAL ) and is published in GPE 's ORG Rule CARDINAL ) .

No appeal lies against ORG decisions ( LAW of LAW CARDINAL ) . They are binding on the public authorities ( pouvoirs publics ) and on all administrative and judicial authorities ( LAW ) .

ORG may , however , of its own motion or at the request of an interested party , rectify clerical errors affecting its decisions ( Rules CARDINAL–CARDINAL ) .

Reimbursement in whole or in part of expenditure recorded in campaign accounts , where provided for by law , is not possible until the campaign accounts have been approved by ORG ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Where it has been found in a final decision that the maximum permitted amount of election expenditure has been exceeded , ORG orders the candidate to pay the ORG a sum equivalent to the amount of the excess . The sum is recovered in the same way as debts owed to the ORG other than taxes and debts relating to ORG property ( Article PERSON ) .

ORG has no discretion ; it is required to apply ORG final decision and to base its calculation of the sum payable to the ORG by the candidate solely upon the amount by which the statutory ceiling on election expenditure has been exceeded ( judgment of ORG , DATE ) .

As to the nature of the payment , ORG has held ( in the judgment cited above ) :

“ ... even if it is accepted that the requirement to pay the ORG a sum equivalent to the amount by which the maximum permitted amount of election expenditure has been exceeded represents a penalty , that penalty is only an administrative penalty . It can not be regarded as criminal in nature or intended to punish an offence . It does not therefore come within the scope of LAW Moreover , where the ceiling on election expenditure has been exceeded , LAW makes provision for the penalties of fines and imprisonment ; these are criminal PERSON in nature and are not in issue in the instant case . The argument based on an infringement of the provisions of LAW in the contested decision must consequently fail . ”

A person who has not filed his campaign accounts in accordance with the requirements and within the time - limit laid down in LAW DATE or whose campaign accounts have been rightly rejected is disqualified from standing for election for a period of one year from the date of the election . Anyone who has exceeded the maximum permitted amount of campaign expenditure as laid down in Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL may likewise be disqualified from standing for election for the same length of time ( Article L.O. CARDINAL , second paragraph , of LAW ) .

Where appropriate , ORG disqualifies the person from standing for election and , if that person was the candidate elected , it declares in the same decision that he has forfeited his seat ( Article L.O. CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ A fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and a sentence of DATE imprisonment , or CARDINAL of those penalties , shall be imposed on any candidate ( in the case of a poll to elect a single candidate ) or any candidate heading a list ( in the case of a poll to elect candidates from party lists ) who

( CARDINAL ) has expended more than the maximum permitted amount laid down pursuant to LAW ;

( CARDINAL ) has not complied with the formal requirements for drawing up campaign accounts laid down in Articles PERSON and PERSON ;

( CARDINAL ) has declared in his campaign accounts or the appendices to them amounts that have knowingly been reduced ;

It is the duty of ORG to send a case to the public prosecutor ’s office where it finds irregularities which appear to contravene , in particular , Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ( Article PERSON ) .

Where so provided by law , a serious crime ( crime ) or other major offence ( délit ) is punishable with CARDINAL or more “ additional ” penalties ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) , including deprivation of civic , civil and family rights , which may include the right to stand for election ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary , such a deprivation can not follow automatically from a criminal conviction ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .


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

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

The applicant claims that he was called to the ORG gendarme station on DATE on suspicion of killing PERSON on DATE in a fight . He contends that he was immediately detained and during the first TIME he was not given anything to eat . He states that he was blindfolded .

The period of his detention was extended by the Torul public prosecutor for DATE at the request of PERSON , the captain of the ORG gendarme regiment . The applicant claims that he was beaten and tortured during his detention .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant ’s formal arrest . The applicant ’s wife , PERSON , applied to ORG on CARDINAL DATE claiming that her husband had been tortured by gendarmes while in custody . The public prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation . He took statements from Captain PERSON as well as CARDINAL other witnesses .

On DATE the public prosecutor issued a decision of non - prosecution . The applicant ’s wife challenged the decision before ORG .

On DATE ORG accepted her submissions and annulled the non - prosecution decision .

On DATE the Torul public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings before ORG charging Captain PERSON and gendarme officers PERSON Temur , PERSON and PERSON of offences under LAW CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the Torul Criminal Court of First Instance issued a non - jurisdiction decision and separated the proceedings against Captain PERSON GPE from those brought against the other co - accused on the ground inter alia that the charges were more appropriately dealt with under Article CARDINAL of the Penal Code .

ORG sent Captain PERSON file to the NORP public prosecutor ’s office to obtain the necessary authorisation to prosecute him . Authorisation was given by ORG of ORG and the NORP public prosecutor subsequently instituted criminal proceedings against Captain PERSON before ORG on DATE .

On DATE the court joined the cases of Captain PERSON and the other CARDINAL accused . The applicant joined the case as an intervening third party .

The court had before it CARDINAL medical reports . According to the first report dated DATE MONEY of violence had been found on the applicant ’s person . However , the second medical report dated DATE stated that the following marks were found on his body : an oedema QUANTITY in diameter on his right hand , a graze on his left leg of CARDINAL by QUANTITY and a discolouring under his right eye . The medical reports were sent for examination to ORG which concluded that the applicant ’s health was not at risk . The applicant was given CARDINAL days’ sick leave from work . The report of ORG also mentioned that the applicant ’s injuries could have been caused by blows .

Although the witnesses called on behalf of the applicant stated before the court that they did not see him being beaten , they affirmed that they observed that he had some violet - coloured bruises on his face and body when he was brought before the substitute judge . The witnesses further maintained that the applicant told them that the commander of the gendarme station had tortured him during interrogation .

In a judgment dated DATE , ORG found Captain PERSON guilty of an offence under LAW since he had tried to extract incriminating statements from the applicant . The court accepted that the applicant was subjected to ill treatment and to inhuman and degrading treatment in custody . The court relied on the statements of the witnesses , medical reports and the interrogation record signed by Captain PERSON which indicated that he had questioned the applicant . The court sentenced Captain PERSON to QUANTITY - months’ imprisonment and debarred him from duty for DATE . The court suspended the prison sentence since it considered that the accused would not commit any similar offences in the future . The court acquitted the other CARDINAL accused on account of lack of evidence .

Captain PERSON appealed against conviction . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal and sent its judgment to ORG on DATE where it was deposited with the ORG .

The applicant maintains that he was notified of this decision on DATE when he went to the court to obtain a copy .


Violation of Art. 6-1 and P1-1 (quashing of final judgment);Violation of Art. 6-1 and P1-1 (enforcement delays);Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and now lives in LOC .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s employer , the ORG - owned construction and industrial holding “ GPE ” , seconded him for participation in the clean - up works at the site of the GPE nuclear plant disaster . As a consequence of exposure to radioactive emissions , on DATE the applicant was assigned to the second disability category .

Until DATE the applicant ’s former employer had paid him DATE compensation for health damage . In DATE the holding was privatised and re - organised into a public company OAO “ SPK GPE ” .

DATE and DATE the compensation was paid by ORG ( now renamed as ORG no . CARDINAL of ORG , hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) .

NORP Since DATE the compensation has been paid by ORG of ORG in LOC .

In DATE the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer , “ GPE ” , claiming that the amount of the compensation paid had been incorrectly calculated in the period from DATE to DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted his claim in part .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the matter for a new examination on the ground that the obligation to pay compensation for health damage had been transferred to the social security authorities .

On DATE ORG joined ORG as a co - defendant to the proceedings .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted the applicant ’s claims against his former employer and established that the applicant had been entitled to DATE payments of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . No award against ORG was made because the applicant apparently objected to its being joined as a co - defendant . By interim decision ( opredelenie ) of DATE , an arithmetical error in the judgment was corrected .

In DATE the applicant asked ORG to supplement the operative part of the judgment of DATE with a reference to the fact that from DATE the ORG should have been the legal successor to his former employer in respect of payment of compensation for the health damage . ORG objected to the applicant ’s request , claiming that it had been lodged outside the time - limit and that its granting would determine a matter that fell outside the scope of the judgment of DATE , namely the issue of its succession to the obligations of the applicant ’s former employer .

By judgment ( reshenie ) of DATE , ORG amended the judgment of DATE . It established that from DATE the ORG should have paid compensation to the applicant in lieu of his applicant ’s former employer , in the same amount ( RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , with subsequent adjustment for increases in the minimum DATE wage . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE was not appealed against .

It appears that ORG continued to underpay the applicant . He asked LOC to clarify the procedure for enforcement of the judgment of DATE and to issue him with a writ of execution .

On DATE ORG , noting that the defendant had been duly notified of the hearing but failed to appear , found that ORG had not complied with the judgment of DATE and continued to pay the applicant significantly smaller amounts . By decision ( opredelenie ) of that date , the court ordered that ORG pay the applicant , at the expense of the ORG , the amounts outstanding for the period from DATE to DATE to the total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and issued him with a writ of execution . The decision of DATE was not appealed against .

The applicant submitted the writ to ORG .

On DATE ORG forwarded the writ to ORG , which , in turn , forwarded it to ORG .

On DATE ORG advised the applicant that his writ of execution had been accepted for enforcement . However , enforcement was only possible “ within the funding limits and budgetary constraints ” and “ in the chronological order as [ writs of execution ] had been issued by courts ” .

On DATE a court bailiff of the GPE Regional bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings against ORG and invited it to execute the judicial decision within DATE .

On DATE the ORG heard the application of ORG for an amendment of the procedure for enforcement of the judgment of DATE and determined as follows :

“ Having regard to the difficult social situation in GPE in DATE ... the court considers it necessary to recover MONEY in [ the applicant ’s ] favour from ORG in DATE instalments ... It has been established that the deferred instalments shall be guaranteed against inflation in accordance with the NORP laws ... ”

On DATE ORG clarified its decision of CARDINAL DATE , indicating that the instalments should be equal and that the decision had immediate effect .

According to the Government , on DATE the ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter for a new examination . On DATE ORG refused the application by ORG for a change of the debtor and stay of enforcement . Copies of these decisions have not been made available to the ORG and their precise contents are not known .

On DATE the ORG asked ORG for the resources necessary to pay the debt to the applicant . On DATE , in response to an inquiry by a bailiff into the progress of the request , ORG replied that they had asked ORG to allocate the necessary amount ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined “ an application by ORG no . CARDINAL for supervisory review of ORG judgment of DATE ... which contained a request for a stay of enforcement ” . Pursuant to LAW , it decided to obtain the case file and suspended enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the bailiffs received ORG decision and stayed the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined “ an application by ORG no . CARDINAL Ms L[. ] for supervisory review of the case ” . ORG accepted as meritorious PERSON argument that that ORG had not been competent to issue the judgment of DATE . Pursuant to LAW , it remitted the supervisory - review application for examination on its merits by the Presidium of ORG .

On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed , by way of supervisory review , the judgment of DATE and remitted the applicant ’s request for supplementing of the operative part of the judgment of DATE to ORG for a new examination .

On DATE the Korenovskiy ORG determined that it had issued the judgment of DATE in excess of jurisdiction because LAW had not provided for issuing of judgments in such situations .

A judicial decision became legally binding upon expiry of the time - limit for lodging an appeal if no such appeal had been lodged ( LAW ) . The time - limit for lodging an appeal was set at DATE ( LAW ) .

A judgment was to be enforced after it had become legally binding , unless it provided for immediate enforcement ( LAW ) .

The Code of Civil Procedure of GPE ( “ the new Code ” ) was enacted on DATE and replaced LAW ( “ the old LAW ” ) from DATE . It provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The grounds for quashing or altering judicial decisions by appeal courts are :

( CARDINAL ) NORP violation or incorrect application of substantive or procedural legal provisions . ”

“ CARDINAL . Judicial decisions that have become legally binding , with the exception for judicial decisions by the ORG of ORG of GPE , may be appealed against ... to a court exercising supervisory review , by parties to the case and by other persons whose rights or legal interests have been adversely affected by these judicial decisions .

Judicial decisions may be appealed against to a court exercising supervisory review within DATE after they became legally binding ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Having examined an application for supervisory review , the judge issues a decision on –

( CARDINAL ) obtaining the case file if there exist doubts as to the lawfulness of the judicial decision ...

NORP If a decision to obtain the file has been made , the judge may suspend enforcement of the judicial decision until the supervisory - review proceedings have been completed ... ”

“ CARDINAL . A judicial decision on remitting the case for examination on the merits by a supervisory - review court must contain :

( CARDINAL ) a reasoned description of the grounds for remitting the case for examination on the merits ... ”

“ Judicial decisions of lower courts may be quashed or altered by way of supervisory review on the grounds of substantial violations of substantive or procedural legal provisions . ”

“ CARDINAL . Having examined the case by way of supervisory review , the court may ...

( CARDINAL ) quash the judicial decision issued by a court of first , second or supervisory - review instance in whole or in part and remit the matter for a fresh examination ; ...

( CARDINAL ) quash or alter the judicial decision issued by a court of first , second or supervisory - review instance and issue a new judicial decision , without remitting the matter for a fresh examination , if substantive legal provisions have been erroneously applied or interpreted . ”

Resolution no . CARDINAL of ORG of GPE of DATE , “ On certain issues arising in connection with adoption and coming into force of the Code of Civil Procedure of the GPE ” , provided that –

“ CARDINAL . ... The [ DATE ] time - limit for lodging an application for supervisory review of judicial decisions that became legally binding before DATE , shall run from CARDINAL DATE . ”

NORP In response to question no . CARDINAL concerning calculation of the time - limit for lodging an application for supervisory review of judicial decisions that became legally binding before DATE , the ORG of ORG clarified that the final date for lodging such an application should be DATE .

Once instituted , enforcement proceedings must be completed within DATE upon receipt of the writ of execution by the bailiff ( Section CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE - GPE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG of the Vladikavkaz Garrison granted the applicant ’s complaint against the commander of ORG of ORG and , among other things , recovered in his favour a number of unpaid allowances due to the applicant for his service in the conditions of an armed conflict . The ORG did not mention any specific amounts , instead suggesting that the debtor calculate them on a certain basis .

The above judgment was not appealed and became final . It was enforced in the larger part on DATE , with only the food allowance remaining unpaid .

On DATE the applicant was paid the outstanding food allowance , and the judgment of DATE was thus enforced in full .