No violation of Art. 11;No violation of Art. 14+11

The applicants are NORP citizens . Mr. PERSON is a professor of law at ORG and Mr. PERSON is an officer in ORG .

The applicants are members of trade unions affiliated to CARDINAL of the main federations representing ORG employees , namely ORG ( ORG FAC , abbreviated to ORG ) in the case of Mr. PERSON and ORG ( PERSON , abbreviated to ORG ) in the case of Mr. PERSON .

In DATE , after expiry of CARDINAL collective agreement and during negotiations for a new agreement , the ORG unions called selective strikes not affecting the sectors in which worked the applicants , who thus did not come out on strike . Mr. PERSON and Mr. PERSON complain that on conclusion of the new agreement , they , as members of the " belligerent " unions , were denied certain retroactive benefits paid to members of other trade unions and to non - union employees who had not participated in the strikes .

General background

For DATE , workers and employers in the private sector in GPE have traditionally enjoyed the right to form and join trade unions and associations and to take action in defence of their occupational interests without interference by the ORG .

Certain principles of labour law which had evolved in practice were codified in DATE and DATE by the following legislation :

( i ) the DATE LAW ( lag om kollektivavtal ) ;

( ii ) the DATE LAW ( lag om arbetsdomstol ) ; and

( iii ) the DATE Act on the Right to Organise and Negotiate ( lag om förenings - och förhandlingsrätt ) .

LAW deals with collective labour agreements between employers or ORG associations and trade unions . It specifies in particular the legal effects of such agreements . For example , the parties may not take strike or lock - out action in regard to an issue regulated by a collective agreement in force between them .

The DATE LAW contained rules governing the composition , jurisdiction and procedure of ORG . ORG was competent to hear cases of alleged violation of LAW on the Right to Organise and Negotiate . It also had jurisdiction in disputes relating to the interpretation or application of collective agreements , but proceedings could only be brought by a party to the agreement in issue . Unions or non - union employees to whom such an agreement had been made applicable ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) were obliged to bring their disputes before the ordinary courts or administrative courts , as the case might be .

The above - mentioned LAW of DATE guarantees CARDINAL distinct rights to the parties on the labour market , namely the right to organise and the right to negotiate .

The right to organise is defined in LAW as being the right of employers and employees to belong to an ORG organisation or a trade union , to exercise their rights as members of that organisation or union , and to work for an organisation or a union or for the formation of an organisation or a union , without interference or pressure by the other party . LAW specifies that the right to organise shall be considered as being violated " if measures are taken either by employers or by employees to constrain any employee or employer , as the case may be , to refrain from becoming a member of , or to resign from , an association , to refrain from exercising his rights as a member of an association , or to refrain from working for an association or for the formation of an association , and likewise if measures are taken either by employers or by employees calculated to cause prejudice to an employee or employer , as the case may be , on the ground that such employee or employer is a member of an association , exercises his rights as a member of an association or works for an association or for the formation of an association " .

The only way in which such associations enjoy the protection of the LAW is that they may be awarded damages if the other party violates the right to organise of an individual member in such a way that the violation is to be regarded as intervention in the affairs of the association .

The right to negotiate is defined in LAW as being " the right to institute negotiations regarding conditions of employment or relations between employers and employees in general " . It imposes on the other party an obligation to enter into negotiations , to attend meetings for negotiations and , where necessary , to make proposals for the settlement of the issues involved . This provision is applicable to all trade unions .

DATE , the ORG determined the wages and conditions of employment of its employees in the event of a breakdown of the negotiations between the ORG and the employees .

As from DATE , the DATE LAW ( statstjänstemannalag ) has virtually assimilated ORG employees to employees in the private sector as regards trade union rights , strikes , lock - outs , etc . The LAW made LAW , the DATE LAW and LAW on the Right to Organise and Negotiate applicable in the public sector . Furthermore , the LAW provided for collective agreements to be concluded , subject to certain exceptions , between the National Collective Bargaining Office ( Statens GPE , hereinafter referred to as " the ORG " ) , representing the ORG as employer , and the organisations of ORG employees . ORG has a nominee on the governing board of the ORG .

The DATE legislative reform was facilitated by the centralised structure of the NORP trade union movement ; CARDINAL factor which greatly contributed to its adoption was the conclusion in DATE of LAW ( slottsbacksavtalet ) between the ORG and the CARDINAL main trade union organisations of ORG employees , namely :

( i ) ORG ( PERSON , abbreviated to GPE and known prior to DATE as Statstjänarkartellen ) ,

( ii ) ORG ( ORG ) ,

( iii ) ORG ( ORG ) ,

( iv ) ORG ( Tjänstemännens Centralorganisations Statstjänstemannasektion , abbreviated to ORG ) .

According to the information at the disposal of the ORG , these federations represent the large majority of NORP ORG employees : CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL whose terms of employment are negotiated by the ORG . CARDINAL trade unions are affiliated to these organisations . The few independent trade unions represent CARDINAL ORG employees in all .

Insofar as they are union members at all , university teachers and army officers generally belong to ORG and ORG respectively . These CARDINAL organisations , which are respectively open to staff possessing a university degree or the school leaving certificate ( the equivalent of the baccalauréat ) , recently merged after the case had been brought before the Commission .

According to the trade ORG own published figures , the number of ORG members in respect of whom the ORG conducts collective negotiations was CARDINAL in DATE and DATE ; it rose to CARDINAL in DATE and was CARDINAL at DATE . The university ORG union affiliated to ORG had CARDINAL members in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL at DATE . ORG had CARDINAL members in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL at DATE . The army ORG union affiliated to ORG had CARDINAL members in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL at DATE ; it would appear that in DATE its membership had fallen to CARDINAL or CARDINAL .

Clause CARDINAL of the above - mentioned LAW provides that negotiations with a view to concluding a collective agreement shall be conducted on the employees’ behalf by the " main organisation " concerned , unless the ORG and the " main organisation " agree otherwise .

ORG of DATE relating to LAW ( ORG om vissa statliga kollektivavtal m.m . ) includes the following provisions :

" Collective agreements as to such conditions of employment or service as are determined by the King - in - Council or by ORG shall be concluded conditionally on the agreement being sanctioned by the King - in - Council . "

" An ORG which is bound by a collective agreement shall apply the provisions of the agreement to any employee within the occupational group and region to which the agreement refers , notwithstanding that the employee is not covered by the agreement or by any other applicable collective agreement . "

Collective agreements in GPE are normally concluded for a period of DATE . For various reasons , however , the new collective agreement is often concluded some time after the previous agreement has expired . In such cases , the new agreement has often specifically provided that its terms shall apply retroactively as from the date of expiry of the previous agreement . In the case of a strike during the bargaining period , on the other hand , employers - both in the public and private sector - have customarily refused to grant retroactive benefits in order to deter unions from taking industrial action in the future ( application of the principle that " a strike destroys retroactivity " ) .

Negotiations in the public sector of the labour market are centralised in that they are conducted by the federations on behalf of their member unions . Moreover , strikes and other collective action may not be taken by the different trade unions independently but rather on the basis of a decision by , or after receiving the approval of , the federation concerned , which chooses and designates in accordance with its pre - arranged policy or tactics those of its members who are to take part in the action . According to the present practice , the negotiations between the ORG and the federations result in CARDINAL single agreement which regulates the increase in salaries , the grading of different categories of employees , working TIME , various salary allowances , etc . , and which applies , as a result of LAW referred to above ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , to all categories of ORG employees , including those who are not represented by the federations . The agreement is normally signed by all the federations .

The question whether an individual employee has any means of challenging his union ’s decision to go on strike is a matter exclusively governed by the internal rules of the union concerned . These may provide for a right to ask for a secret ballot or for other rights to object to the union ’s decisions to take industrial action .

The law described above at paragraphs CARDINAL has in DATE undergone various changes which , being subsequent to the facts at issue , are not relevant for the present case .

Facts of the particular case

In DATE a global agreement for DATE was concluded by ORG and the CARDINAL federations . When this period expired on DATE , the parties were still engaged in negotiations regarding the new global agreement . No agreement was reached and ORG was appointed , but negotiations before it broke down as well . Consequently , ORG and ORG proclaimed selective strikes which became effective on DATE and involved CARDINAL members . This resort to strike action , which was quite lawful ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) , did not apply to university teachers or the ORG so that neither Mr. PERSON nor Mr. PERSON took any part in the strikes .

The ORG retaliated and , on DATE , CARDINAL members of ORG and ORG were locked out . This affected all university teachers belonging to ORG , including Mr. PERSON , and some officers belonging to ORG , but not Mr. PERSON . New strikes and lock - outs were proclaimed , but did not become effective . On DATE , an Act was promulgated which gave the King - in - Council power to order the prolongation of certain collective agreements for a period of DATE , but not extending beyond DATE , provided that collective industrial action threatened vital public interests . By virtue of this LAW the previous collective agreement was reinstated on DATE for a period of DATE and all strikes and lock - outs terminated forthwith .

Subsequent negotiations before ORG resulted in DATE in a new global agreement for DATE . According to this agreement , certain posts were upgraded and the salary scales were generally increased retroactively as from DATE . Clause CARDINAL , however , provided for an exception in this respect :

" Officials who were members DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( or any part of this period ) of organisations that organised industrial action for any part of this period , shall not be entitled from DATE to CARDINAL DATE to the increased wage benefits applicable under the agreement , unless ORG decides otherwise . This declaration also concerns other officials if they took part in any such industrial action . "

The agreement was only signed by ORG and GPE . ORG and ORG refused since they considered the terms unacceptable . The agreement , and in particular clause CARDINAL , was nevertheless applied to their members by virtue of LAW above - mentioned Royal Order ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

According to the applicants , during the negotiations GPE and ORG had urged that the non - retroactivity clause should not be included in the agreement and expressed the opinion that it properly belonged to an agreement between the ORG and the CARDINAL organisations concerned , ORG and ORG . GPE and ORG declared this expressly and inserted a reservation in the record before putting their signatures to the agreement . ORG had , however , attempted to entice to itself some members of ORG , which was in its opinion a purposeless organisation , and had in fact written to the applicant PERSON in this vein .

As a result of the agreement , members of ORG and ORG , insofar as they were upgraded , did not receive the higher salary for the period from DATE , nor did they benefit from the general increase in the salary scales during the same period , regardless of whether or not they had been on strike . ORG employees who were not members of ORG or ORG but who had all the same participated in the strike , were also refused the benefit of retroactivity .

The exception clause applied to both applicants as members of ORG and ORG , even though they themselves had not gone on strike at all . Mr. PERSON was affected for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , being the date when he was locked out and thus deprived of his salary . Mr. PERSON , who was upgraded under the new agreement , was affected for the whole period DATE . During these periods the applicants performed work for a lower salary than that paid to other employees who were in the same salary brackets but not members of ORG or ORG . Their financial losses amounted to ORG . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL respectively .

Mr. PERSON , following the conclusion of the collective agreement , gave notice to the ORG that , through his special treatment in regard to wages , his right to organise had been violated . When the ORG nevertheless refused him the benefit of retroactivity , ORG and ORG brought an action against the ORG before ORG under LAW on the Right to Organise and Negotiate , seeking on behalf of the applicants ( and a third person who was also a member of ORG ) , inter alia :

( i ) a declaration that the measures taken by the ORG constituted a violation of the applicants’ right to organise and that this involved an interference with the affairs of ORG and ORG ;

( ii ) a declaration that clause CARDINAL of the agreement of DATE was of no effect in regard to the applicants ;

( iii ) an order that the ORG pay compensation to the applicants for financial loss and infringement of their right to organise .

ORG and ORG asserted that the ORG had infringed their ORG right to organise as guaranteed in LAW since , with regard to retroactive wage benefits , they were subjected to special treatment in comparison with members of ORG and GPE and non - union officials . ORG denied any such infringement since members of ORG and ORG had been refused the benefit of retroactivity only for the reason that the ORG wanted to maintain the principle that " a strike destroys retroactivity " . A comparison between ORG and ORG members , on the one side , and members of ORG and GPE and non - union officials , on the other , did not provide any basis for the conclusion that the ORG acted on such a basis or with such a purpose as was envisaged by LAW .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG unanimously rejected the claim of the ORG unions . ORG first confirmed the parties’ common view that the right to organise did not exclude the possibility for the ORG to enforce the principle that a strike destroys retroactivity . The adoption of such a position , and its enforcement after a conflict , were not to be regarded in themselves as an attack on the right to organise . Furthermore , the employer ’s duty to respect this right did not include any obligation in principle to pay equal wages to union and non - union employees or to members of different organisations . The mere fact that different wages were accorded to different groups of employees did not by itself lead to the conclusion that a measure violating LAW had been employed . However , any favouring either of members of the organisation which reached agreement or of non - union employees , with the aim of exercising against the members of the other organisation the type of pressure envisaged in LAW , would constitute a violation of that provision .

The ORG then found that no such purpose on the part of the ORG could be established . In particular , no support had appeared for the idea that the ORG intended to induce members of ORG and ORG to switch over to ORG and GPE . In this context , the ORG assumed that the latter organisations would also have been refused retroactivity if they had organised industrial action during the process of negotiations .

With respect to non - union employees the ORG found that the reason why they were granted a special benefit had nothing to do with their position as being non - union . Any procedure designed to refuse the benefit of retroactivity generally to non - union employees in sectors where ORG and ORG were dominant or representative obviously could have become very complicated and time - consuming . Moreover , no recognised norms existed for determining such sectors , and the concept of representation was ambiguous and disputed . The ORG then referred to the ORG ’s failure to negotiate an agreement which would exclude retroactivity to all non - union employees within the sectors in which ORG and ORG were representative . In this respect the ORG considered that the facts of the case did not support the conclusion that this failure showed any intention on the part of the ORG to violate the right to organise . Otherwise , the ORG would , as soon as CARDINAL federation organised industrial action , be barred from upholding the principle that a strike destroys retroactivity in any other way than by refusing retroactive validity for agreements concluded with respect to all employee organisations . Such a general limitation of the ORG ’s possibilities of upholding the principle could not be based on LAW .

In the case before it , the ORG did not consider the granting of retroactive benefits to non - union employees who had not been on strike as proof of any purpose to violate the right to organise . In the ORG ’s opinion , the parties had not been able to present anything more than quite uncertain information on the total number of non - union officials or on their field of employment . ORG indicated that the GPE view concerning the ORG ’s purpose in its treatment of non - union officials might have appeared more reasonable if it had been possible to show that the large majority of non - union officials were active within the main field of activity of ORG and ORG . Conversely , it would be less reasonable to take notice of the treatment of the group of non - union officials if these could primarily be classified within the field of recruitment of GPE and ORG The uncertainty in regard to these circumstances argued , in the ORG ’s conclusion , in favour of the GPE declaration that its purpose did not extend beyond upholding the principle that a strike destroys retroactivity .

In their application , lodged with the ORG on DATE , the applicants complained that in the particular circumstances the implementation of the ORG ’s policy regarding payment of retroactive benefits had amounted to preferential treatment , in particular in comparison with non - union employees , and had consequently violated LAW ( LAW ) of the Convention .

The Commission declared the application admissible by a decision of DATE .

During the examination of the merits , the applicants relied on LAW ) and also LAW , read in conjunction with LAW ( article DATE ) .

In its report of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG :

( i ) confirmed its opinion , previously expressed in the report in the NORP ORG case , that LAW para . CARDINAL ( LAW ) may legitimately extend to cover ORG responsibility in the field of labour - management relations and thus to provide some protection for unions against interference by employers ;

( ii ) expressed the opinion :

- by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL with CARDINAL abstention , that the ORG ’s policy of denying retroactive benefits to non - striking members of belligerent unions did not in the circumstances infringe the applicants’ right , under LAW para . CARDINAL ( LAW ) , to form and join the trade unions ;

- that in view of the preceding finding , the ORG was not called upon to examine whether the action complained of was justified under LAW para . CARDINAL ( LAW ) ;

- by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL with CARDINAL abstentions , that the differential treatment complained of was in the circumstances justified as an industrial relations policy and that there had been no violation of LAW read in conjunction with LAW para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL + CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The report contains a separate concurring opinion .


Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

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

On DATE the applicant was operated on in ORG . In the consultation and examination form it was noted that the applicant was complaining of weakness in the right leg as well as occasional urinary incontinence and that he had tethered cord syndrome , a disorder of the spinal column .

On DATE his catheter was removed . However , as he was not able to pass urine it was reinserted .

He was discharged from the hospital on DATE .

He was admitted to the hospital once again on DATE for inability to pass urine . He was discharged on DATE . In the discharge summary form it was noted that the applicant had a permanent catheter . He was diagnosed with neurogenic bladder and prescribed with the use of a catheter CARDINAL times a day .

On DATE the applicant obtained a medical report from the health board of ORG . It reads as follows :

“ The applicant who came to our hospital on DATE ... was examined , treated and given recommendations at ORG .

For your information .

Admission - Discharge Dates : CARDINAL

Diagnosis : Neurogenic bladder ( “ urinary dysfunction ” )

Other issues : The catheterisation of the patient with ... type of catheter CARDINAL times a day for DATE is convenient . ”

On DATE he applied to ORG seeking compensation and lodged a criminal complaint against the doctor concerned for breach of duty .

On the basis of a medical expert opinion given by CARDINAL spinal surgeons on DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s request on DATE .

On DATE he initiated compensation proceedings against the administration .

On DATE the Governorship of ORG did not grant the permission sought for the prosecution of the doctor concerned , basing its decision on a preliminary investigation report . It was observed that the patient ’s symptoms had existed prior to the surgery and that they consisted of the development of his progressive neurological disease , namely tethered cord spinal syndrome . On DATE the public prosecutor terminated the investigation for this reason .

NORP Before ORG the administration claimed that the civil action was time - barred ; that in any case the applicant ’s complaints had pre - dated the impugned operation ; that the applicant had been operated on DATE for tethered spinal cord syndrome , and that the medical expert evidence had confirmed that the doctor concerned had not been negligent .

ORG noted that on DATE the applicant had been diagnosed with tethered spinal cord syndrome , the symptoms of which included loss of bladder control . Having observed that the applicant had been hospitalised for urinary incontinence on DATE , it stated :

“ ... even assuming that at the time of the diagnosis he had not been suffering from this symptom , since he was admitted to ORG on DATE for inability to pass urine without the use of a catheter it should be held that he should have been aware of his condition by that date at the latest . ”

The first - instance court concluded that for the purposes of section CARDINAL of LAW the DATE time - limit had started running on DATE and that the case lodged on DATE was therefore time - barred . It declared the case inadmissible on DATE .

The applicant appealed against the decision .

NORP The public prosecutor at ORG pointed out that the time should be calculated from the date on which the person concerned had become aware of the damage . He referred to paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , which stipulates that individuals whose rights have been violated by an administrative action should apply to the administration concerned for redress within DATE of the date on which they were notified or otherwise became aware of the administrative action , and in any case within DATE of the date of the action . He proposed that the judgment of the first - instance court should be quashed , holding that the applicant had become aware on DATE that his neurogenic bladder might have been connected to the surgical operation .

ORG upheld the decision of the firstinstance court on DATE . The final decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


CASE OF TUDOR-AUTO S.R.L. AND TRIPLU-TUDOR S.R.L. v. MOLDOVA

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicants , ORG and ORG , are CARDINAL companies incorporated under NORP law .

On DATE ORG for ORG by ORG of GPE ( “ the Service ” ) ( PERSON pentru supravegherea asigurărilor pe lângă PERSON GPE ) registered the insurance company ORG , founded by CARDINAL private parties ORG , ORG and ORG ( “ the founders ” ) . On an unspecified date the founders lodged with the ORG a request to register CARDINAL other insurance companies , which on DATE were registered as ORG and TripluTudorAuto ORG They also sought the registration of changes in the ORG founders , namely the replacement of ORG and ORG with other founders , and in one of the company ’s names from ORG into ORG On DATE and on DATE the ORG granted their requests .

On DATE ORG no . CARDINAL “ on certain regulatory measures of insurance activity ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , according to which insurance companies had to fulfil certain formalities and to obtain new registration certificates before DATE .

On DATE ORG and ORG submitted to the ORG the required documents together with the evidence of increase in their statutory capital CARDINAL NORP lei ( ORG ) , ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) , as provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL , and requested to register the changes in the constitutional documents and to be issued with new registration certificates for insurance activity ( “ the certificates “ ) . Since the ORG refused to comply with their requests , on an unspecified date each of the applicant companies brought actions against the ORG , seeking to order it to register the requested changes and to issue new registration certificates .

On DATE , during the proceedings before the first - instance court , the ORG only registered the changes in the companies’ statutory capital .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant companies and ordered the ORG to issue them with new registration certificates . On DATE the applicant companies were issued with enforcement warrants which stated “ for immediate enforcement ” . The ORG appealed .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeals of the ORG in both cases . No further appeals were lodged and the judgments became final and enforceable .

The ORG took a number of steps designed to either annul the final judgments or to prevent their enforcement . On DATE and DATE the ORG annulled its decisions of CARDINAL and DATE and of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG requested a stay of the enforcement proceedings , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On an unspecified date it asked for a revision of the judgments of DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the request as unfounded .

On DATE the ORG lodged a new request for a revision of the judgments of DATE . By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the request .

In a separate set of proceedings , on DATE ORG fined ORG for failure to comply with the judgments in favour of the applicant companies . Following an appeal lodged by the Director , on DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and discontinued the proceedings against him as statute - barred . Nevertheless , in a separate decision of the same date ORG specifically addressed ORG about the need to enforce the final judgments in order to avoid subsequent damage to ORG interests .

On DATE the ORG issued each of the applicant companies with certificates , but the Minister of Finance did not sign them so that they had no legal force . In DATE the applicant companies requested a bailiff to fully enforce the judgments and to obtain the signature of the Minister of Finance on the certificates .

On DATE and DATE ORG requested the applicant companies to submit certain documents in order to re - register the companies , as provided for by a new law on State registration of enterprises . Since the requests specifically stated that the applicant companies should have submitted the originals of their registration certificates , the latter failed to comply with the requests .

The judgments of CARDINAL DATE have not been enforced to date .

On DATE T.P. ( it appears from the case file that the founder ORG , see paragraph CARDINAL above , had changed his name ) lodged a request to join the proceedings which ended with the final judgment of DATE as a third party . He claimed that he was the owner of a PERCENT share in the applicant company and that the changes to the applicant company ’s statutory documents , introduced on DATE , had been adopted without his knowledge .

By a final decision of DATE ORG dismissed ORG request as unsubstantiated .

On DATE T.P. lodged with ORG a request for a revision of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , relying mainly on the same grounds as in his request of DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the request as unsubstantiated and statute - barred , since it had been lodged DATE after the date on which ORG had found out about “ new relevant circumstances ” . T.P. lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG upheld his appeal on points of law and quashed the judgment of DATE . It ordered a full re - examination of the case . ORG did not deal with the issue of the DATE time - limit for lodging the revision request .

The outcome of the reopened proceedings is unknown .

The relevant domestic law concerning non - enforcement of a final judgment is set out in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIII ( extracts ) .

The relevant domestic law concerning the revision of a final judgment is set out in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE .

The relevant provisions of the PERSON no . CARDINAL-XII of DATE “ on insurance ” , in force DATE and DATE , read as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL . Funds and reserves of the insurer

( CARDINAL ) The guarantee of the financial stability of the insurer consists in disposing of a statutory capital tantamount to the volume of its insurance obligations . The minimum statutory capital of the insurer shall constitute CARDINAL lei , in monetary deposits .

Section CARDINAL . The guarantee of the insurer ’s solvency

( CARDINAL ) The solvability reserve for life and pension insurances shall be composed of the statutory capital , the reserve fund and the long - term ORG reserve and shall constitute not PERCENT of the insured amounts .

( CARDINAL ) The solvability reserve for other types of insurance shall be composed of the statutory capital , the reserve fund , the reserve fund for other types of insurance , and shall constitute not PERCENT of the insured amounts ( ... ) ”

“ Section CARDINAL . The scope and the main duties of ORG for ORG :

( CARDINAL ) ORG for ORG ( ... ) has the duty to supervise insurance activity , to guarantee the protection of rights of the insured and insurers ( ... )

( CARDINAL ) The main duties of the ORG ( ... ) are :

a ) to examine the constitutional documents of insurance companies submitted for registration ( ... ) ;

b ) to hold a record of the insurers ;

c ) to issue licences for insurance activities ( ... ) ; ”

Amendments to Law no . CARDINAL-XII of DATE “ on insurance ” of CARDINAL DATE , read as follows :

“ [ LAW ] the text “ CARDINAL lei ” is replaced by the text “ CARDINAL lei ” ”

The relevant provisions of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE “ on insurance ” , read as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL . Statutory capital of the insurer ( re - insurer )

( CARDINAL ) The minimum statutory capital of the insurer ( re - insurer ) shall be MONEY ( ... ) .

( CARDINAL ) At the moment of registration , the statutory capital of the insurer ( re - insurer ) should be entirely deposited by its founders .

( CARDINAL ) Contributions to the minimum statutory capital shall be entirely deposited in money both at the moment of creation [ of the company ] as well during increase [ of the statutory capital ] .

( CARDINAL ) The means obtained by the potential shareholders of the insurer ( re - insurer ) from loans , bank credits , mortgage or other investments , including investments of other participants of the insurance market ( ... ) can not serve as a source of formation or increase of the insurer ’s statutory capital . ”

“ Section CARDINAL .

( CARDINAL ) Insurers , who hold of licences ( .. ) at the moment of entering into force of the present law , are authorised to continue their activity for DATE , during which period they shall comply with the provisions of the present law , except for the cases provided in paragraphs ( CARDINAL ) .

( CARDINAL ) Licences for insurance activity which had been issued prior to the entering into force of the present law and which are valid for a period longer than the CARDINAL provided for in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , shall be valid until the expiry of the period for which they had been issued .

( CARDINAL ) Insurers who hold of licences at the moment of entering into force of the present law , shall :

( b ) have of a minimum statutory capital in the amount of :

CARDINAL lei – after DATE from the moment of entering into force of the present law ;

MONEY – after DATE from the moment of entering into force of the present law ;

CARDINAL lei – after DATE from the moment of entering into force of the present law . ”

The relevant provisions of Government Decision no . CARDINAL of DATE “ on certain regulatory measures of the insurance activity ” , in force between DATE CARDINALand CARDINAL DATE , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Insurance organisations , ( ... ) shall increase their statutory capital CARDINAL lei before DATE .

The ORG ( ... ) shall issue new registration certificates to the organisations which comply with the requirements provided for by paragraph CARDINAL of the present Decision .

In order to be issued with new certificates , the insurance organisations shall :

- pay the ORG a fee in the amount of CARDINAL minimum salary ( ... ) ;

- submit the original of the documents which confirm the address , the existence of the [ required ] statutory capital , the real value of its actives accumulated from its own resources , the certificate issued by the fiscal authorities concerning payments to ORG and the certificate of ORG registration of the organisation .

The old - type registration certificates of the insurance organisations shall become void as of DATE . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c;Damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

On DATE , in the course of an armed robbery in the province of GPE , CARDINAL masked criminals killed CARDINAL person and seriously injured another ; they then fled in a car driven by an accomplice .

Among the suspects , who were swiftly identified , was the applicant .

Mr F.C.B. was arrested in GPE on DATE and extradited to GPE on DATE . He was charged with armed robbery , murder and attempted murder , these crimes being aggravated by the fact that he had committed them while wilfully evading arrest under other warrants .

On DATE ORG found him and his CARDINAL co - defendants guilty and sentenced him inter alia to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant and CARDINAL others who had been found guilty appealed , and on DATE ORG of Appeal acquitted them for lack of evidence . PERSON was released on DATE ; in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he indicated his address .

ORG and CARDINAL other parties , including the applicant , appealed on points of law . The prosecution ’s notice of appeal was served on Mr F.C.B. personally on DATE at the address he had given , which was also that of his mother .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , allowed the prosecution ’s appeal , and remitted the case to ORG .

Mr F.C.B. had in the meantime entered GPE on DATE . He settled at PERSON and was granted a residence permit there on CARDINAL DATE . He claims that he informed ORG in GPE of his new address , in order for it to be notified to the NORP authorities for " entry in the civil status register " . He did not , however , send the authorities an amended version of his declaration of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant was arrested in GPE on DATE under a warrant issued in the GPE in connection with proceedings relating to the abduction of a GPE woman .

According to PERSON , after he had been extradited to the GPE the NORP authorities obtained a copy of his criminal record ; furthermore , the judge in charge of the case arranged for his NORP colleagues in GPE and GPE to co - operate in investigations in GPE and asked ORG to have searches of the dwellings of the applicant , his sister and his sister - in - law carried out . The Government did not contest this point , merely stating that they had no detailed information about it .

Mr F.C.B. maintained that he was held in solitary confinement from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , when his conviction by the ‘ s - ORG became final , and was thus subject to certain restrictions - which were , however , eventually relaxed - on correspondence , visits and contacts with other detainees .

On DATE the President of ORG attempted to serve a summons to appear before that court on the applicant at the address given by him on his release , but neither the applicant nor his mother lived there any more .

On DATE the summons was delivered to PERSON mother , whose new address had been found out in the meantime . The applicant ’s lawyer had also been informed on DATE of the hearing date .

The trial opened on DATE in Mr F.C.B. ’s absence . His counsel informed the court that , according to close relatives of his client , the latter was in custody in GPE ; he added , however , that he was unable to produce documentary evidence to this effect . The prosecution submitted that there was no objective evidence to show that Mr F.C.B. was in custody and invited the court to try him in absentia as unlawfully absent ( contumace ) . The court decided to do this , but counsel for CARDINAL of the co - defendants asked it to verify the information that Mr F.C.B. was unable to attend the trial , as the applicant ’s presence could prove to be of importance for his client . That client and another co - defendant confirmed that Mr F.C.B. was in prison in the GPE ; the one had learnt of it from the newspapers and the other had received a letter from the applicant sent from GPE prison .

The prosecution for their part repeated their submissions . After deliberating in private , ORG confirmed its declaration that PERSON was unlawfully absent , as he had not provided proof that he was unable to attend , despite having been notified in good time of the start of the trial .

On DATE the court sentenced him to PERCENT four years’ imprisonment and issued a warrant for his arrest .

On DATE Mr F.C.B. ’s NORP lawyer sent his NORP colleague copies of documents ( CARDINAL summonses to appear before the GPE courts ) showing that his client was in custody . Translations were given to the court on DATE

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed on points of law to ORG ; his grounds of appeal were filed in DATE . He submitted that ORG had been wrong in declaring PERSON unlawfully absent and questioned the correctness in law of the judgment . On the first point he argued that the decision itself and the subsequent proceedings were null and void , as it had been impossible for his client to attend the hearing . He said that it was only out of excessive regard for formal propriety that ORG had declined to rule that the applicant was unable to appear , notwithstanding several concurring statements testifying to the fact .

ORG dismissed the appeal on CARDINAL DATE .

It found , firstly , that the appeal court had been right to try Mr F.C.B. as unlawfully absent , as there was no proof that he was unable to attend . The documents produced on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been offered in evidence only after judgment had been given and therefore had no probative value . With greater diligence the defence could have produced them before the hearing . It could be seen from the statement of appeal that the applicant would have had time to do this , as he had been in custody in the GPE well before the summons to appear was served . ORG held that it was for ORG to assess the alleged inability to attend , and that that court had given proper reasons for its decision .

On DATE the NORP authorities had requested PERSON extradition for the purposes of the judicial investigation concerning him . On DATE , however , ORG dismissed the request as inadmissible , on the grounds that ORG had already given a judgment on the merits on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court added that it would consider the matter again in the event of the judicial investigation being reopened as a result of a retrial being ordered by ORG or for some other reason .

The GPE agreed to extradite PERSON to GPE and he is currently in custody there .

According to the information given to the ORG by counsel for the applicant , the applicant will have to return to the GPE to serve DATE imprisonment there , and if the NORP authorities succeed in obtaining his extradition , he will then serve in GPE DATE and DATE of the prison sentence imposed by ORG .

In the PERSON and Others judgment of DATE , the NORP judgment of CARDINAL DATE and ORG judgment of DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , paras . CARDINAL ; no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL , and p. CARDINAL , paras . CARDINAL ; no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ) the ORG gave a brief description of the NORP legislation then in force as regards notifications and trials in absentia ( contumacia ) .

As to notifications to an accused who has been released but in whose case a final judgment has not yet been given , the first and fourth paragraphs of LAW provide as follows ( translation from NORP ) :

" An accused held in custody who has to be released for a reason other than a final acquittal ... must at the time of release declare or elect an address [ for service ] by lodging a document with the director of the prison . The director shall enter any declaration he has received in the register specified in LAW and shall immediately notify it to the judicial authority which ordered the release ... .

Any change relating to the address declared or elected must be communicated by the suspect or accused to the authority in charge of the case , as provided for in the first paragraph . Notifications made to the address previously declared or elected shall be valid until such communication has been received . "


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

NORP In DATE the applicant was engaged as an official employed under an individual contract ( agent contractuel ) by ORG of ORG . Under a contract of CARDINAL DATE he was sent to GPE to work as a technical adviser .

Following an amendment of CARDINAL DATE to the contract of CARDINAL DATE , he was posted to GPE with effect from DATE to head an autonomous section of ORG . Under the authority of the chief commercial adviser of the GPE office , who was himself responsible to the chief commercial adviser at the NORP embassy in GPE , to whom the agricultural attaché was also answerable , he was placed in charge of the wines , beers and spirits sector , where he had dealings with exporters and importers and , in particular , the ORG company ( Société pour l'expansion des ventes des produits alimentaires et agricoles ) .

In accordance with Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE on the general terms and conditions of service of persons working overseas for the ORG under individual contracts , the applicant was employed on a series of DATE contracts which were to be automatically renewed unless expressly terminated . The ORG could terminate any contract on DATE notice for , inter alia , inadequate performance .

In a letter dated DATE , which was served on the applicant on DATE , the Minister for ORG informed the applicant that , owing to his inadequate performance , he did not intend to renew his contract when it expired on DATE . In a letter dated DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , the Minister informed him of his final decision not to renew the contract , on the ground that , among other matters , the applicant had shown a marked lack of initiative towards importers .

By letters of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the applicant lodged CARDINAL applications for judicial review of this decision with ORG . The first sought to have the Minister 's first letter of DATE , which was in the nature of a preliminary to a final decision , set aside . The second was aimed at having the final decision to dismiss the applicant , contained in the letter of CARDINAL DATE , quashed . The third challenged the lawfulness of the appointment of the applicant 's replacement .

In a judgment of DATE ORG , having joined all CARDINAL applications , dismissed them .

On DATE the applicant gave notice of an appeal to the ORG d'Etat on points of law . He lodged a statement of the grounds of appeal on DATE . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which was served on the applicant on DATE , the ORG d'Etat dismissed the appeal , holding , inter alia , that it had been lawful for the Minister to dismiss the applicant on the ground of inadequate performance .

According to LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE laying down regulations governing the terms and conditions of service specific to economic development personnel , “ the civil servants of the economic development offices overseas constitute a body of staff responsible to the Minister for ORG . In the performance of their duties they shall be attached to either a diplomatic delegation or a consulate ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the decree provides that they are to act as delegates of the Minister for Economic Affairs in respect of all matters relating to GPE 's foreign trade . In particular , they are responsible for studying all problems having a bearing on the NORP economy , supplying information to the various NORP administrative authorities and assisting with the preparation , negotiation and execution of commercial treaties and agreements . They must also participate in various surveys or special projects and in all economic events organised or run by the various ministries or official groups , defend the country 's general economic interests and on that account provide direct assistance , in overseas markets , to NORP businessmen , industrialists and agricultural producers .

ORG has an establishment of CARDINAL staff . Commercial attachés second class are recruited from among graduates of ORG ( ENA ) ; commercial advisers of the various classes may in addition be recruited from the ORG civil service . All commercial advisers and attachés are posted abroad by order of the Minister for ORG , made after the agreement of the Minister for ORG has been obtained .

In addition , by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL posts of agricultural attaché have been created . Agricultural attachés are responsible to the head of the relevant economic development office . Their duties are described in LAW no . DATE of DATE : they study , from the technical point of view , problems affecting NORP agricultural development , particularly by seeking outlets in the local market for imports of NORP agricultural produce , and act as advisers during the preparation of negotiations on international commercial agreements and their application , assisting the head of office in his relations with the public administrative authorities dealing with foreign trade matters .

The general terms and conditions of service of persons of NORP nationality working overseas for the ORG or ORG public administrative bodies under individual contracts are laid down by Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE . The provisions of the decree are not applicable to technical assistance or cooperation staff placed at the disposal of foreign GPE . The different types of post are defined in orders made by the ministries concerned . They may be filled either by non - established employees or by established civil servants .

The relevant provisions of the decree are worded as follows :

“ Persons to whom LAW applies shall sign a contract of service . The contract , which must refer to the provisions of this decree , shall specify its duration , the date on which it is to take effect , the staff member 's category , grade and duties , the appropriate residence allowance group , the country of the posting and , where applicable , the family allowance group . ”

“ Where the staff member was recruited in the country of the posting , the contract must be for a period of DATE . Where the staff member was recruited in GPE or in a foreign country other than the country of the posting , the contract must be for DATE plus the length of his or her official home leave entitlement .

A contract does not become final until expiration of the period of probation or training which the staff member may be required to complete immediately after signature of the contract in the country of recruitment . The contract may be terminated by either party without restriction or notice at any time during this traineeship period or on its expiry . ”

“ The contract shall be terminated : CARDINAL . when it expires , save that it will be deemed to have been tacitly renewed for a period equivalent to its original length unless terminated either by the ORG or by the member of staff DATE before the date on which it is due to expire . Refusal to renew the contract or to sign a new contract shall be deemed a resignation . Such a refusal on the part of the ORG shall be deemed a dismissal , save where a new contract is signed within DATE of the expiry of the previous one ; CARDINAL . at any time if terminated by the ORG on DATE prior notice where the grounds for the termination are redundancy or inadequate performance ; [ or ] in the case of dismissal on disciplinary grounds . ”

Article PERSON ) of LAW DATE instituting ORG ( “ the LAW ” ) provides for a derogation from the principle of freedom of movement for workers within the Community in respect of “ employment in the public service ” . ORG of ORG has developed a restrictive interpretation of this derogation . In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of GPE v. GPE ( C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON ) it decided that the derogation concerned only posts which involved direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the ORG or of other public authorities , and which thus presumed on the part of those occupying them the existence of a special relationship of allegiance to the ORG and a reciprocity of rights and duties which formed the foundation of the bond of nationality .

ORG , to which LAW assigned responsibility for ensuring the correct application of Community rules , noted that a large number of posts likely to be caught by the derogation had in reality no bearing on the exercise of powers conferred by public law or protection of the general interests of the State .

In a communication of CARDINAL DATE it set itself the task of listing separately those activities which were covered by the derogation and those which were not . It thus established CARDINAL distinct categories of activities according to whether or not they involved “ direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State ” .

These categories were defined as follows :

“ Exclusion of specific activities in the national public service [ from freedom of movement for workers ]

On the basis of current ORG rulings , and bearing in mind the present conditions for establishing the single market , the ORG considers that the derogation in Article PERSON ) covers specific functions of the ORG and similar bodies such as the armed forces , the police and other forces for the maintenance of order , the judiciary , the tax authorities and the diplomatic corps . This derogation is also seen as covering posts in ORG , regional government authorities , local authorities and other similar bodies , central banks and other public bodies , where the duties of the post involve the exercise of ORG authority , such as the preparation of legal acts , the implementation of such acts , monitoring of their application and supervision of subordinate bodies ...

Activities concerned by action in the public service sector

The Commission considers that the functions involved in certain forms of public employment are for the most part sufficiently remote from the specific activities of the public service as defined by ORG that they would only in very rare cases be covered by the exception in Article PERSON ) of the LAW .

The Commission proposes therefore to implement its action in the following areas by order of priority :

– bodies responsible for administering commercial services ( e.g. public transport , electricity and gas supply , airline and shipping companies , posts and telecommunications , radio and television companies ) ,

– public health care services ,

– teaching in ORG educational establishments ,

– research for non - military purposes in public establishments .

Each of these activities also exists in the private sector , to which Article PERSON ) does not apply , or may be exercised in the public sector without the imposition of nationality requirements ... ”


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was an activist of ORG , an organisation which played one of the key roles in the country 's struggle for independence from GPE . In DATE , when ORG came into power in the country , he was appointed to a number of high military posts and in DATE he became the Commander of ORG .

After ORG lost political power in DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested and detained on remand . Upon arrest , allegedly , he was not informed of the charges against him and was refused access to a lawyer . On DATE ORG of ORG , acting as a court of first instance , convicted the applicant for attempted murder ( DATE imprisonment ) , abuse of authority at wartime ( DATE ) , intentional abuse of authority ( DATE ) , misuse of weapons ( DATE ) , negligent approach to military service ( DATE ) and humiliation of a subordinate person ( DATE and DATE ) , and sentenced him to a total of DATE imprisonment by merging the sentences .

On DATE the same court , again sitting in first instance , convicted the applicant for “ failure to use authority to resist the NORP occupation of the town of PERSON and prevent the subsequent mass killing of the civilians fleeing the town ” . The court sentenced the applicant to fifteen years ' imprisonment , merging his previous DATE sentence into this new sentence . The imprisonment period was to be calculated from DATE of the applicant 's arrest on DATE . Pursuant to the old criminal procedure law applicable at that time , both ORG judgments were final and not subject to appeal .

At the time of GPE 's admission to ORG , the applicant 's name appeared in the lists of “ alleged political prisoners ” in GPE submitted to the experts of the Secretary General . GPE had made a commitment to either release or give a re - trial to all persons identified as “ political prisoners ” by these experts . However , ultimately , the applicant was not regarded as a political prisoner by the experts of the Secretary General ( see Cases of alleged political prisoners in GPE and GPE , ORG ( DATE ) DATE , Addendum I , DATE , LAW ( III ) , Case No . CARDINAL ( the applicant 's name is transliterated as “ PERSON ” in this document ) ) .

In DATE a new Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter “ CCrP ” ) was adopted . Before its entry into force on DATE , on DATE ORG passed the Law On ORG into Force of the Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE ( hereinafter the “ LAW ” ) , which allowed lodging an appeal under the new CCrP against final judgments delivered in accordance with the old criminal procedure .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG judgments of DATE and DATE . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the applicant that , in addition to the appellate complaint , he also had to file a petition in order to restore the appeal period .

According to the applicant , he filed such a petition on DATE . Having not received an answer , he appealed again on DATE and yet again on DATE . In reply to these applications , in its identical letters of DATE and DATE signed by a court clerk ( the Head of ORG ) , ORG informed the applicant that his case would be examined shortly by ORG Cases and that he would be informed of any further developments in due course .

NORP However , during the following period of over a year , despite the applicant 's continuous inquiries , no examination of the case took place and no information in this regard was given to the applicant .

Finally , DATE after lodging his appeal , by a letter of DATE signed by the same court clerk , the applicant was informed that :

“ ... in accordance with Article CARDINAL of LAW currently in force , ORG may only examine criminal cases ... based on appeals or protests against first - instance courts ' judgments and other decisions which have not entered into force [ i.e. have not become final ] ... For re - consideration of the firstinstance judgments of ORG of DATE and DATE you are advised to apply to ORG . ”

Although , during the same period , the applicant was actively engaged in correspondence with ORG with regard to unrelated proceedings concerning the reduction of his sentence , the applicant did not file a formal appeal with ORG concerning the present case .

On DATE the applicant was pardoned and released from prison pursuant to a presidential pardon decree .

Law of DATE on the adoption and entry into force of LAW ( the “ LAW ” )

Article CARDINAL : “ Judgments and other final decisions delivered by first - instance courts under the [ old ] Code of Criminal Procedure ... before the entry into force of this [ new ] Code , may be reconsidered by an appellate court or ORG in accordance with Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the [ new ] Code of Criminal Procedure . ”

Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE of DATE

Article CARDINAL provides that ORG is a court of appellate instance concerning criminal cases and other matters related to criminal prosecution .

Article PERSON provides that ORG has a competence to examine criminal cases and other matters related to criminal prosecution based on appellate complaints or protests against judgments and other decisions of first - instance courts that have not entered into legal force .

Article CARDINAL provides that ORG is a court of cassation instance concerning criminal cases and other matters related to criminal prosecution .

Article PERSON provides that the relevant chambers of ORG have a competence to examine criminal cases and other matters related to criminal prosecution based on cassation complaints or protests against judgments and other decisions of the appellate courts or jury courts .

Article CARDINAL provides that the appellate court must hold a preliminary hearing of the case within DATE after the receipt of an appellate complaint . The parties to the case and the state prosecutor have a right to attend this hearing . These persons must be informed in advance of the time and place of the hearing .

Article ORG provides that , during the initial hearing , the appellate court must determine , inter alia , whether it has competence to examine the appellate complaint and whether the appellate complaint was submitted in accordance with the relevant procedural requirements .

Article CARDINAL provides that , upon the initial hearing , the appellate court may decide , inter alia , to leave the appellate complaint without examination , to forward the appellate complaint to a court having appropriate competence , to reinstate or refuse to reinstate the expired period for filing the appellate complaint , to appoint a judicial hearing for examination of the merits of the appellate complaint , or to refuse to admit the appellate complaint for examination .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) was represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with diabetes , type II . From DATE the applicant needed to receive regular injections of insulin .

On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the organising of human trafficking . On DATE he was admitted to ORG No CARDINAL . DATE the applicant was transferred to the hospital wing of FAC , where he remained until DATE when he was transferred to the medical unit of ORG .

On DATE the lower court found the applicant guilty , sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of his property . The appellate court on DATE took the applicant ’s poor health into consideration as well as the fact that the applicant could not be provided with proper medical treatment in prison . As a result the court reduced his sentence by DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant was transferred to PERSON , from which he was released on DATE after having served his sentence .

According to the applicant , on his admission to the medical unit of ORG he was informed that owing to insufficient funds the prison was not in a position to provide him with insulin , and that he had to rely on his relatives to obtain it for him .

From CARDINAL to DATE the applicant was held in a disciplinary cell in FAC for having committed a disciplinary offence . According to the applicant ’s submission , he had had to inject himself with insulin there despite conditions being insanitary .

Meanwhile , from DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE the applicant was held in ORG short - term detention unit in order to ensure his attendance at the court hearing in GPE . According to the applicant , the conditions there amounted to torture in that he had been denied a consultation with a doctor and food was provided only once per day .

At the applicant ’s request ORG ( “ the MADEKKI ” ) assessed the adequacy of the medical care received by the applicant in FAC in DATE and DATE .

NORP In its report of CARDINAL DATE the ORG found no infringement of the applicant ’s right to medical treatment over the period from DATE to DATE . In the course of preparing the report a representative of the PERSON met with the applicant , who did not raise any complaints regarding the quality of medical care he had received . The inspectorate observed that , before the arrest , the applicant ’s doctor had repeatedly recommended that he visit an endocrinologist but the applicant had not done so , blaming his busy schedule . The inspectorate concluded that the applicant had been injecting insulin himself following the doctor ’s recommendations , and monitoring his sugar levels with the use of a glucometer . The applicant ’s overall state of health was considered to be stable .

In several letters dated CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the complaints which the applicant had brought regarding the medical care he had received and the fact that he had not been provided with insulin in LOC . ORG noted , in particular , that under the ORG medical system the applicant ’s relatives were allowed to obtain insulin and syringes free of charge on his behalf .

On CARDINAL and DATE the applicant addressed a similar complaint to the PERSON and ORG . The applicant also drew the PERSON ’s attention to the poor conditions in ORG .

On DATE the PERSON drew up a second report concerning the medical care the applicant had received in FAC . It observed that his entire stay in FAC had been spent in the medical unit , where he had been regularly examined by doctors . It noted that the applicant ’s sugar level was CARDINAL mmol / l and he had been injecting himself with insulin and testing his sugar levels .

With regard to the supply of insulin to the applicant , the PERSON concluded that during his stay in ORG the administration had failed to furnish him with insulin ; that the laboratory testing of his sugar levels had not been carried out regularly , and that he had not had a consultation with an endocrinologist .

With regard to the complaint of a lack of medical care in ORG unit from DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE , the PERSON noted that the medical unit of ORG had informed ORG that the applicant was permitted to use insulin , certain medications and a glucometer . The PERSON observed that the applicant had not raised any health - related complaints while in the PERSON short - term detention unit , where he had been provided with the standard diet for detainees .

The Office of the Prosecutor in its letter of CARDINAL DATE reminded the applicant that according to his agreement with the medical unit of ORG , from DATE to DATE he had agreed to supply the insulin himself . In the same letter ORG stated that on DATE ORG had purchased insulin especially for the applicant which he had used until his transfer to Jelgava Prison on DATE . The applicant did not complain in this respect to a higher prosecutor .

The applicant ’s medical file , as summarised by the PERSON ’s reports mentioned above , show that he was diagnosed with diabetes type II in DATE . From DATE he was recommended insulin treatment because his sugar levels occasionally reached CARDINAL - CARDINAL mmol / l . DATE , on average , the applicant ’s doctor would issue repeat prescriptions for CARDINAL doses of insulin ( Monotard ) . In response to the applicant ’s complaints that his sugar levels occasionally reached CARDINAL mmol / l the doctor had recommended , on CARDINAL occasions , that the applicant attend self - care and awareness clinics for diabetic patients . The report reveals that the applicant had not done so .

From DATE the applicant received medical treatment in the prison hospital where he was seen by various specialists . The sugar level in his blood and urine was monitored twice a week on average . By DATE , according to prison hospital records , the applicant ’s health had improved ; he declined to increase his dose of insulin and agreed on a particular course of treatment with the doctor at the prison hospital .

On DATE , the applicant underwent medical examinations and was then admitted to the prison hospital on DATE , where he remained until DATE , because he was suffering from hyperglycaemia .

On the applicant ’s discharge from the hospital in DATE and again in DATE it was recommended that he have his blood and urine sugar levels monitored and be given a tailored diet and medication , including insulin . In the medical unit of ORG he was prescribed insulin and CARDINAL kinds of medication as recommended .

On DATE the applicant ’s health was assessed by a medical consultative commission at FAC , which prescribed a particular treatment including an injection of insulin twice per day . The follow - up of the treatment was carried out on average once DATE until DATE . After he had been transferred to the disciplinary cell he was authorised to use CARDINAL other kinds of medication brought from home .

On DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s sugar levels had increased so he was repeatedly admitted to the prison hospital in the period from DATE to DATE , when he was discharged from the hospital at his own request .

The applicant was visited by a doctor before and after his transfer to ORG on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . He had not raised any complaints and his health was considered to be satisfactory .

According to a medical report from GPE hospital , the applicant ’s former doctor gave the applicant ’s wife prescriptions for insulin and the other medicine , at her request , on separate occasions in DATE , DATE and DATE .

At ORG request on DATE ORG explained that under the State – financed health programme , as in force at the material time , all diabetic patients in GPE received insulin and syringes free of charge , while detention facilities were obliged to purchase insulin for detainees suffering from diabetes from their budgets . Owing to insufficient funds available for medication , the administration of the prison authorised diabetic detainees to receive insulin from outside the prison . Usually family members received prescriptions for insulin from the detainee ’s former doctor and brought the insulin to the detainee in prison .

NORP In response to the Government Agent ’s questions , ORG ( ORG ) explained that the minimum healthcare requirements of diabetic patients comprised the regular administering of medication , monitoring of sugar levels and treatment for hypoglycaemia . Blood tests should be carried out as required . There was no vital need for an endocrinologist if the sugar levels were satisfactory .

The ORG also noted that it was of crucial importance that diabetic patients had an understanding of their illness . Since there was no special “ diabetic diet ” , by monitoring the sugar levels of the patient the amount of insulin was to be adjusted according to the quantity of food taken .

Regulations no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE concern the provision of medical assistance to convicted and detained persons in their place of custody ( see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


EMIN AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

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

The applicants state that they are nationals of the “ GPE ” . Their names , dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Annex . They are represented before the Court by Ms Y. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

NORP The facts of the cases may be summarised as follows . They are relatives of NORP - Cypriot men who went missing in either DATE or DATE during incidents of mounting tension and violence in which NORP or NORP - NORP villages were targeted ( see PERSON for further details ) .

These men were listed as missing persons , the information being given to the NORP authorities , ORG and ORG .

The remains of the missing men have been found during exhumations carried out by ORG for Missing Persons(“CMP ” ) in DATE . Further details are set out in the LOC .

In CARDINAL cases , the applicants wrote to the NORP authorities requesting information about any investigation into the disappearance of their relative and/or the discovery of the remains : in PERSON and Others , no . ORG , by letter dated DATE to the Minister of the ORG , in PERSON and Others , no . CARDINAL , by letter dated DATE to the Minister of the Interior and in GPE and Others , no . CARDINAL , by letters dated DATE , to the Attorney - General and to the Minister of the ORG . No reply or information was received , save for an e - mail from the Attorney - General ’s office dated DATE in the FAC case , stating that all necessary action would be taken .

In this case , the claimants challenged the decision in DATE to remove their relative , a NORP - Cypriot combatant last seen in DATE , from the list of missing persons after examination of the list by the Attorney - General of GPE ; his file was communicated to the PERSON side instead on the basis that he had died of wounds during the fighting and not to ORG . In a decision dated DATE , ORG in its appellate jurisdiction rejected the case on the basis that the case did not concern an administrative decision but was an act of government outside the court ’s jurisdiction . Matters relating to missing persons were part of the GPE problem and fell within the power of the political authority .

NORP In these cases lodged in DATE , the relatives of CARDINAL NORP men who went missing on DATE after they had been taken from their homes by armed NORP Cypriots , lodged applications under LAW , claiming that GPE had known of the deaths of the missing persons but had not searched for the corpses or brought the guilty persons to justice and that the Republic had not taken the necessary actions to pursue an effective investigation to determine the whereabouts and fate of the missing persons . In their response , GPE stated that they had not been passive but had been unable to pursue their intentions to exhume and identify corpses due to the agreement between ORG , the NORP - NORP side and themselves that exhumations would be conducted by a common programme of ORG . They also pointed out that exhumations had begun in DATE and the programme indicated the likelihood of the exhumation of the graves in the relevant area would commence in DATE . They disputed that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the courts but fell rather under the supervision of ORG and the authority and initiative of the President of the Republic .

In its decision dated CARDINAL DATE , ORG in its appellate capacity held that the fate of missing persons fell under the authority of the President of the Republic as it had an international aspect ; the cases therefore concerned an act of government which did not fall within the jurisdiction to annul of ORG .


Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

The applicant and ORG had a relationship and were living together for an unspecified period . In DATE PERSON gave birth to the applicant 's son , P. In DATE during the applicant 's stay abroad , PERSON 's mother , ORG , moved out from their house and took P. with her , apparently as a result of growing tensions and disagreements in the couple . Afterwards she refused to allow the applicant to have contact with ORG , on an unspecified date , the applicant took P back to his place , without ORG 's agreement .

On an unspecified later date PERSON filed with ORG ( sąd rejonowy ) a request for limitation of the applicant 's parental responsibility for P.

On DATE the court issued an interim order to place P. with his mother . It relied on P. 's age , on the fact that O. breast - fed P. and , also , on the fact that he was suffering from allergy . On the following day a court - appointed guardian assisted by a police officer arrived at the applicant 's place and after a TIME skirmish took PERSON away .

On DATE the applicant and ORG concluded a friendly settlement as to the access arrangements . They agreed that ORG 's place of residence would be with his mother . The applicant had a right to take P. to his place at specified dates and times in DATE . Starting from DATE he was supposed to spend DATE with his son at his home . As to the exact dates of meetings in DATE the parties agreed to determine them at DATE .

At DATE O. refused to hand over her son to the applicant , maintaining that P. was ill at that time .

NORP In DATE the applicant requested that a court guardian assist him in meetings with PERSON , submitting that ORG failed to comply with the settlement they had concluded in DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant petitioned ORG to fine O. for obstructing his contacts with P. as established in the settlement of DATE . He also requested the prosecution authorities to institute criminal proceedings against O.

On an unspecified date at the requests of the applicant and NORP proceedings concerning parental responsibility were instituted .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant 's petition , considering that only after the completion of the parental - responsibility proceedings would it be possible to examine them . The court observed that the parties to the court settlement of DATE had not specified the dates of the applicant 's meetings with P. and that therefore the settlement was impossible to enforce . It was therefore impossible to examine the applicant 's petition to have a fine imposed on O.

On DATE the applicant went to O. and , after an altercation , took his son away . Subsequently , O. informed prosecution authorities that the applicant had kidnapped P. and threatened her .

On DATE the applicant sent letters to ORG and the prosecution authorities informing them that he had taken over the custody of P. and would continue to exercise his parental rights until the completion of the parental - responsibility proceedings pending before ORG . He declared that O. would be able to meet her son at the applicant 's home .

On DATE ORG , at ORG 's request , ordered the applicant to hand over P. to NORP within DATE . Initially , he declared his willingness to do so , but , subsequently , went into hiding together with his son .

On DATE ORG ( prokurator rejonowy ) discontinued the proceedings initiated at the applicant 's request , considering that O. had not committed the criminal offence of obstructing his contacts with P. It was established that O. had ceased to comply with the terms of the DATE settlement at DATE , relying on the fact that P. had been sick at that time . She also objected to the applicant taking P. to his home as he lived far away from ORG 's residence . The applicant 's appeal against that decision was dismissed by ORG ( prokurator wojewódzki ) .

On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the investigations instituted at ORG 's request . He considered that the applicant had not committed a criminal offence . It had been established that since DATE O. had not allowed the applicant to take his son to his home , despite the fact that P. had got better . The applicant had only been allowed brief visits at her home to see P. The applicant had informed the police and requested to be given assistance , but his efforts failed to affect the mother 's conduct . It was further pointed out that after taking away P. from his mother the applicant had informed the prosecution authorities in GPE and NORP about the incident . In the light of the fact that the applicant had full parental rights in respect of P. the prosecutor did not consider his acts a criminal offence . O. 's allegations about having been threatened by the applicant proved unsubstantiated .

On DATE and DATE ORG ordered the applicant to reveal PERSON 's place of residence and warned him that in case of failure to comply with its order he would be fined , with imprisonment in default . He did not comply with these orders .

On DATE ORG issued an enforcement order in respect of ORG decision of DATE . It ordered a bailiff to take P. from the applicant by force and hand him over to O.

On DATE in the course of the parental - responsibility proceedings the ORG limited the applicant 's parental rights to a right to information about his child 's health . It amended the settlement of DATE in that it decided that further contacts between the applicant and his son should take place on DATE at the mother 's home from TIME without the possibility to take P. anywhere .

The court referred to the DATE settlement between the parties , to the subsequent difficulties in the applicant 's access to P. and to the fact that on DATE he had taken PERSON to his place . The court considered that although there was nothing in the case - file to suggest that the applicant 's parenting skills were insufficient and it was difficult to establish to which of the parents PERSON was more attached , the applicant 's conduct in the course of the proceedings proved his disrespect to the organs of justice and disregard of the interest of the child .

The court dismissed ORG 's request to divest the applicant of parental rights , considering that at that stage it was too early to adopt such a serious measure .

The applicant and ORG appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG ( sąd wojewódzki ) dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the enforcement order of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG amended ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE in that it deprived the applicant of all parental rights in respect of P. It considered that he had abused his rights by making it impossible for the son to contact his mother , whereas the mother 's care at that stage of the child 's development was indispensable . The court further found that the applicant 's continuing hiding was to the child 's detriment , especially because he was apparently working and his son was taken care of by other people . It emphasised that the child had the right to decent life conditions , home and stability , of which the applicant had deprived him . The court further pointed out that the difficulties in enforcing court orders in the past could not justify the applicant 's conduct and he should have availed himself of legal remedies .

On DATE the police took P. away from the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested ORG to prevent the issue of a passport for P. , submitting that O. intended to abduct P. abroad . In reply , he was informed that until DATE when the judgment of DATE obtained legal force the passport would not be issued without the applicant 's approval .

On DATE and DATE the applicant informed ORG about instances of obstructing his contact with P. by O. and requested assistance in the enforcement of his access rights .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request for the appointment of a legal - aid lawyer for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal and exemption from courts costs . The court found that he ran a business and in DATE his income had reached MONEY ( ORG ) , whereas he would have to pay only a ORG CARDINAL fee for his cassation appeal and the legal fees in a case like his would not exceed LAW . The court further noted that the applicant was single and owned a plot of land with a building under construction , as well as a car . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's cassation appeal against that decision , as it was not provided for by law . On DATE ORG rejected his appeal against the latter decision .

On DATE , in reply to the applicant 's complaint , ORG requested ORG to submit information and documents concerning the applicant 's case , as it had certain doubts as to the decision to restrict his parental responsibility for P.

On DATE the Head of ORG at ORG informed the applicant that none of the court guardians had agreed to assist in the arrangements for his contact with P.

On DATE the ORG 's office requested ORG to indicate the policemen who on DATE had taken PERSON away from his father , as well as the person who had ordered it , in breach of the provisions of LAW . The applicant submits that no further measures were taken by the ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's and ORG 's petitions concerning his contact with his son . The court relied on the opinion prepared by CARDINAL experts , according to which the relations between the child and parents were disturbed , and because of the child 's age it was recommended that the meetings with the father would take place at the mother 's home . The experts noted that P. would not want to leave his father . They pointed out that the need to maintain PERSON 's contacts with his father existed , but that the parents did not show understanding for the needs of the child and were driven by the wish to harm each other .

On DATE the applicant filed with ORG a petition in which he requested that O. be deprived of her parental rights and he be granted parental responsibility . Subsequently , he asked the court to issue an interim order to the effect that PERSON 's place of residence would be with the father .

NORP In DATE the applicant filed an unsuccessful request for the reopening of the proceedings terminated on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant 's request for the enforcement of the part of the judgment given on DATE concerning his contacts with his son . The court considered that the place of residence of ORG and the son was unknown and therefore enforcement was impossible .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's petition to deprive O. of parental responsibility for P. It noted that the applicant 's submissions as to the allegedly improper manner in which the mother looked after P. were unsubstantiated . On the contrary , the experts were of the opinion that there were strong emotional bonds between her and P. The applicant appealed .

In her letter of CARDINAL DATE , written in reply to the applicant 's complaint , the President of ORG of Appeal agreed with his contention that the proceedings were lengthy .

On DATE the police authorities informed the applicant that O. with his son had left for GPE on DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE . On DATE ORG , following ORG instructions , stayed the enforcement of the orders concerning contact between the applicant and his son because the applicant was unable to indicate ORG 's place of residence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the decision of ORG .

The proceedings are stayed .

The Family and Custody Code ( PERSON i PERSON ) provides :

“ In a decision on divorce , the court is competent to issue orders concerning the manner in which the care of the parties ' minor children should be carried out ( ... ) . The court may grant custody right to CARDINAL parent and limit the custody rights of the other CARDINAL . ”

The Code of Civil Procedure ( Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego ) provides :

“ The custody court can change its decision if the best interest of person whom it concerns so require . “

According to ORG resolution , if a parent who has been obliged by a court decision to respect the other parents ' access rights refuses to comply therewith , access decisions are liable to enforcement proceedings . The provisions of LAW on enforcement of nonpecuniary obligations are applicable to enforcement of court decisions on parental rights or access rights ( resolution of ORG of DATE , III CZP CARDINAL/CARDINAL , OSNCP CARDINAL DATE ) .

“ CARDINAL . If the debtor is obliged to take measures which can not be taken by any other person , the court in whose district the enforcement proceedings were instituted , on a motion of a creditor and after hearing the parties , shall fix the time - limit within which the debtor shall comply with his obligation , on pain of fine ( ... ) .

If the debtor fails to comply with this obligation , further time - limits may be fixed and further fines may be imposed by a court . ”

If the court obliges a parent exercising custody rights to ensure access to a child to the other parent , LAW is applicable to the enforcement of this obligation .


The applicants whose names appear in the appendix are NORP nationals . They are 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 .

Until DATE the applicants all lived in GPE , in the district of Lice in GPE , where they own property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to ORG where they currently live .

On DATE the mayor filed a petition with the office of the ORG Governor and asked the latter either to allow the residents to return to their village or to provide them with alternative residences .

On DATE the mayor filed a petition with the office of the FAC Governor and asked the latter to provide financial aid and alternative residence for the residents .

On DATE the mayor filed a petition , on behalf of the residents , with the office of the Prime Minister requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE the office of the Prime Minister sent the following reply to him :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been transmitted to the Governor ’s office in ORG for examination . ”

On DATE the mayor filed a petition with the office of the ORG Governor and asked the latter to provide any type of aid for the residents .

On DATE the mayor filed a petition with the offices of the ORG Governor of the state - of - emergency region , the ORG Governor and the Deputy Prime Minister and asked the latter to provide any type of aid for the residents .

On an unspecified date , the mayor filed a petition , on behalf of the residents , with the office of the ORG Governor and requested financial aid and compensation for the damages they had suffered .

On DATE the office of the ORG Governor of the state - of - emergency region sent the following reply to him :

“ ... The office of the ORG Governor of the state - of - emergency region had constructed CARDINAL houses in GPE and they were allocated to the citizens by lots .

Your requests will be taken in to consideration if such a construction project were to be implemented in the future . ”

On DATE the mayor filed a petition , on behalf of the residents , with the office of the ORG Governor requesting permission to return to their village and financial aid .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicants lodged petitions with ORG office in ORG complaining about the burning down of their houses by security forces . However , ORG did not commence an investigation into the ORG allegations .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON , filed a petition with the office of the FAC Governor requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the Lice District Governor sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ ... LOC has been abandoned for a long time . Therefore , there are deficiencies in the infrastructure of the village . Consequently , if you return to your village , you will experience serious difficulties as regards the roads , water , electricity , telephone , etc .

On DATE the Commander of ORG in ORG sent letters to the mayors of the villages in LOC and informed them that access to some villages of LOC would only be possible during DATE in DATE . The Commander further stated that the villagers would be allowed to work in their farms but would not be allowed to spend DATE in their village . It was noted that permission for access to village should be sought from local gendarmerie stations . GPE was not listed among the villages to which access would be allowed under the aforementioned conditions .

On DATE , the CARDINALnd ORG Commander in ORG sent a letter to the GPE office in ORG informing him that the military operations against terrorists would continue to be carried out in the district . The commander requested the GPE office to warn the inhabitants in the region that the security forces would not be responsible for any casualties that might occur in the course the operations .

On DATE the office of ORG attached to ORG sent a letter to the mayor informing him that by reason of the military operations , which were to be conducted on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , access to villages of ORG , ORG , ORG and PERSON would not be permitted until further notice .

On DATE the ORG representative , PERSON , filed a petition , on behalf of the applicants , with the office of ORG attached to ORG requesting pecuniary and non - pecuniary compensation for the damage they had suffered .

On an unspecified date , Mr M.Vefa brought an action , on behalf of fortythree applicants , with ORG requesting pecuniary and non - pecuniary compensation for the damage the applicants had suffered .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action on the basis of LAW . CARDINAL .

On DATE the representative appealed against the decision of ORG .

On DATE the office of ORG sent the following reply to the ORG :

“ ... No military operations were conducted during DATE in ORG .

In order to receive compensation , a copy of the civil or administrative courts’ judgments on the payment of compensation should also be submitted . Furthermore , if you did not file a petition with a court , for compensation within the statutory time limit , prescribed by LAW . CARDINAL , your future petitions would be rejected .

The investigation carried out by the authorities indicated that the applicants had left their villages of their own will . The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village .

The official records indicated that there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages . Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages .

On DATE the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by ORG and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . That PERSON provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the LAW grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages .

In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in QUANTITY provinces . Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation .

The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained CARDINAL . CARDINAL persons , whose applications were pending before the ORG , had also applied to the compensation commissions . Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the ORG ’s decision of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its judgment of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI ) .