Violation of Art. 10;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

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

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) is the owner of a DATE newspaper , ORG , and Mr PERSON ( “ the second applicant ” ) is its editor - in - chief . Until DATE the first applicant owned another DATE newspaper named ORG .

On DATE the First Chamber of ORG convicted PERSON , the editor - in - chief of ORG , of the offence defined in LAW for certain articles published therein . The conviction entailed certain measures being taken against ORG . Pursuant to Additional Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( law no . CARDINAL ) then in force , the court ordered the newspaper to cease publication for DATE .

On DATE , while the closure order was yet to be executed , the applicants notified the office of the GPE Governor of their intention to publish a new newspaper , named Günlük Evrensel .

On DATE Mr Saygılı ceased ORG publication . DATE he launched ORG with a new editor - in - chief , Mr PERSON , and a new team of columnists .

On DATE a number of police officers came to the applicants ' printing headquarters to execute the closure order . They found that the applicants had discontinued ORG and started to publish ORG . The officers informed the public prosecutor in PERSON who , in return , concluded that Günlük Evrensel was ORG successor .

On DATE the public prosecutor applied to ORG ) for a seizure warrant . The court issued the warrant authorising the seizure of ORG CARDINAL recent issues .

DATE the applicants filed an objection with the higher criminal court , ORG ) , asserting that Günlük Evrensel was not ORG successor . Unconvinced by the applicants ' assertions , the court rejected the application without giving any reasons , other than stating that “ it was established that ORG was ORG successor ” .

For DATE the same sequence of events took place ; the prosecutor requested a seizure warrant for the latest issue , ORG granted it and the applicants unsuccessfully lodged a number of objections against those decisions with ORG , which repeated its above conclusion in each of its decisions . In their objections the applicants drew ORG attention to the fact that as Günlük Evrensel had first been published on DATE and ORG was not officially closed down until DATE , it could not possibly be ORG successor . Moreover , ORG had a different editorial team than that of ORG . The applicants also argued that the seizure of ORG was in breach of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention because , inter alia , the seizure decisions were not adequately reasoned .

On DATE the applicants wrote to ORG and requested that a written order be issued against the seizure orders . They repeated their arguments under Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention .

Meanwhile , the PERSON prosecutor filed a number of criminal charges against the applicants on the ground that they had breached the shutdown order by issuing a successor newspaper . The charges were joined and examined by ORG . On DATE the court acquitted the applicants as it found that the CARDINAL newspapers in question were unrelated . The court also revoked the seizure warrants , which had already been executed by then .

Additional LAW :

“ Where offences [ prescribed in LAW ] ... and those threatening national security and general morals are committed via the press , the relevant publication may be ordered to be shut down by the competent court for DATE .

Any publication which manifestly succeeds a previous publication that was so ordered ... shall be seized by a warrant to be issued by a magistrates ' court . ”


Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives with his father and grandmother in a semi - detached house in PERSON . He suffers from paranoid schizophrenia .

On DATE , after an argument with his father , the applicant barricaded himself in his room and threatened his father with a knife and an axe . At TIME the father called the police . He informed the police that his son had thrown him out of the house and had locked himself inside with a number of different sorts of weapons including an air rifle , axe and knives . When the police arrived the applicant had an axe in his hand . He told the police officers to leave the property while threatening them with an air rifle . The police officers decided not to continue the intervention . When the applicant 's father informed them that the applicant was under psychiatric care and recently refused to take the prescribed medications , they called a psychologist , negotiators and a doctor . Following TIME negotiations , which failed – the applicant fired several shots at the negotiators who were approaching the house with shields - the police called the antiterrorist brigade . Considering that the situation posed a threat to the applicant 's family members and those who arrived on the spot , at TIME a brigade of CARDINAL policemen commenced their intervention , which consisted in forcing the entrance door to the apartment , deafening the applicant with a grenade and immobilising him . The applicant was aggressive ; he was armed with an axe , knives and an air rifle and he fired at the policemen . According to the applicant , the policemen were also aggressive : they shouted , swore and kicked him and CARDINAL of them shot him in the left leg . The applicant , even when hurt on his leg , still threw the earlier prepared bayonets at the police officers . According to the police , the shot at the applicant 's leg was preceded by CARDINAL warning shot . However , the applicant submitted that CARDINAL bullets still remain lodged in the walls of the house .

Subsequently , the applicant was immobilised and handcuffed . There was an ambulance in front of the house during the whole intervention , so the applicant 's wound was dressed immediately and the applicant was taken to a hospital . On the way he was resuscitated CARDINAL times .

The doctor who admitted the applicant to the hospital found that he had been in a state of post - traumatic haemorrhagic shock ( pourazowy wstrząs krwotoczny ) which constituted a real danger to his life . On DATE the applicant underwent an operation on his leg . The wound from the bullet resulted in necrosis and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant 's left leg had to be amputated . On DATE the applicant left the hospital .

On DATE the applicant 's grandmother applied to the ORG requesting the prosecution ( wniosek o ściganie ) of the police officers who had participated in the intervention and wounded the applicant .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the investigation , finding that the policemen 's actions had not constituted an offence of abuse of power . In the course of the proceedings before the Prosecutor , CARDINAL witnesses were heard and documentation containing a CARDINAL and CARDINAL pages gathered . The ORG obtained an expert report of a doctor of forensic medicine , who had examined the injuries sustained by the applicant . She further heard the applicant 's grandmother , who said she knew from her grandson that he had been kicked by the policemen when he was lying hurt on the floor . All the members of the antiterrorist brigade denied having kicked the applicant . The prosecutor also heard the applicant and his father as well as outside witnesses . She further examined the medical report issued by the doctor who had admitted the applicant to the hospital and referred to the medical expert report according to which :

“ ... the applicant had been admitted to the hospital on DATE . He had been shot in the left leg with the bullet 's entry probably above the kneecap and exit in the calf . His artery and under - knee vein were damaged , with an open comminuted fracture of his left thigh bone . As a result of the above wounds the complication developed into necrosis and the applicant 's left leg had to be amputated . ”

As regards the course of the events , the Prosecutor established that :

“ After the unsuccessful intervention of the CARDINAL policemen who had initially arrived at the scene , negotiators and a psychologist were sent to the applicant in order to urge him to leave the house . The negotiations lasted TIME but they did not lead to the expected result . The applicant did not react and his only reaction was to fire an air rifle in the direction of the negotiators , who had to protect themselves with shields while approaching the applicant 's windows ” .

When the negotiations failed , the anti - terrorist brigade was called . Before their intervention “ another attempt to establish contact with the applicant was made , and when this failed the brigade began their intervention ” .

In conclusion , the ORG found that the anti - terrorist brigade had used means proportionate to the danger posed by the applicant not only to the policemen and the applicant 's family , but also to third persons . It was also established in the course of the investigation that the policeman who fired at the applicant had first appealed to the applicant to calm down and to put the axe down , and had then fired a warning shot .

On DATE the applicant 's grandmother and father lodged an appeal against the decision of DATE . They complained that the prosecutor had not thoroughly examined the circumstances of the case and that the policemen had abused their powers . In particular , they alleged that the applicant had been shot in such a way that the gun was first pointed at the applicant 's leg and a shot was then fired . They submitted further that not just one warning shot had been fired and that CARDINAL bullets of live ammunition , CARDINAL plastic bullets and CARDINAL deafening grenades remained lodged in the walls of their house . They also demanded that an expert be appointed to examine the way the wounds had been inflicted ; in particular the gunshot wound , but also a broken tooth , wounds to the applicant 's head and a partly torn - off ear .

On DATE the ORG refused to examine the appeal , finding that it had been lodged by persons who were not parties to the proceedings . This decision was challenged by the applicant himself as well as by his father and grandmother .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant 's appeal and quashed the challenged decision of CARDINAL DATE , so allowing the applicant 's appeal against the decision to discontinue the investigation to be examined by a court .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG ( FAC ) to appoint an expert witness to examine the clothes he had been wearing at the time of the intervention in order to find possible traces of gunpowder .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal against the prosecutor 's decision of DATE . The court found that in the course of the investigation which had been carried out properly , all relevant factors had been established and all necessary evidence had been taken in order to give a decision on the merits . It further found , essentially summarising the reasoning of ORG decision of DATE , that the police 's reaction had been proportionate . As regards the allegations concerning the shot fired at the applicant 's leg , the court found that “ the applicant , when heard , did not confirm those circumstances ” . The court did not refer to the applicant 's further reservations regarding the alleged shortcomings of the investigation , especially as regards the number of bullets allegedly remaining in the walls of the applicant 's house . Neither did it refer to the applicant 's request to appoint an expert who would examine his clothes .

On an unspecified date the applicant 's father complained to the ORG .

NORP The ORG requested ORG of ORG ( ORG ) for information on the respective proceedings . Having obtained the information requested , on CARDINAL DATE , the ORG did not find grounds for intervention . He had examined the case - file , reconstructed again the course of events which was consistent with the version as established by the prosecutor and court . The ORG confirmed , inter alia , that when the anti - terrorist brigade forced the door , the applicant behaved aggressively , fired with an air rifle towards the policemen , threw an axe in their direction and , subsequently began to throw knives towards them . Then CARDINAL of the police officers , ORG fired “ warning shots ” and , seeing no reaction on the part of the applicant , fired a shot towards his leg from a distance of QUANTITY . The ORG also found that the applicant had already thrown his father out of their house DATE , and that then he had threatened him with a bayonet . Finally , the ORG pointed to the fact that the request for institution of investigation into the alleged abuse of power by the police officers had been lodged DATE after the events in question .

On DATE ORG opened an investigation against the applicant , who had been charged with an active assault on the police officers ( czynna napaść na policję ) and with causing a bodily injury or an impairment of health for DATE . In the course of the inquiry the Prosecutor ordered expert reports from a psychologist and CARDINAL psychiatrists , obtained evidence including photographic material and heard CARDINAL witnesses including the applicant and members of his family , as well as all policemen who had participated in the intervention .

On DATE the FAC gave a decision and found that during the intervention CARDINAL policemen had been hurt ; CARDINAL had a wound on his cheek and the other had been shot in the right arm . It was also found however that , at the time of the intervention , because of his mental illness the applicant had been incapable of understanding the significance of his behaviour . For that reason the Prosecutor discontinued the investigation .

The Government produced a detailed report of the intervention prepared by the police following the internal explanatory proceedings . The report confirms the applicant 's aggressive behaviour and explains the circumstances in which the shot was given at the applicant . The report , in its relevant part , reads as follows :

“ the police officers breached the entrance door . The officer ORG entered the corridor through the hole in the door and saw a man with an axe in his hand . The man swung his arm towards ORG who jumped back and shouted : “ Police ! Drop it ! ” The man swung his arm again and ORG fired a warning shot at the ground and then , at the next attack with the axe very close to ORG , ORG , facing a direct threat to his life , directed a shot at the applicant 's leg . The man dropped the axe , cowered , and , limping , went further back into the house ”

The regulations on permissible use of direct coercive measures by the police are laid down in section CARDINAL of LAW , which provides that in situations in which the order of a police officer is not obeyed , such measures can be resorted to only in so far as they correspond to the requirements of a particular situation and in so far as they are necessary to obtain compliance with that order .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Ordinance of DATE on the use of coercive measures by the police provides that direct physical force can be used to overpower a person , to counter an attack or to ensure compliance with an order . When such force is being used it is forbidden to strike the person against whom the action is being carried out , except in self - defence , or to counter an attack against another person 's life , health or property .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE GPE Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) charged the applicant with drunken driving . The applicant , represented by counsel , submitted observations on DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a penal order ( PERSON ) finding the applicant guilty of drunken driving contrary to LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of FAC ( Strassenverkehrsordnung ) . As to the alcohol level the authority had regard to the results of a breathalyser test and to the corroborating results of a blood alcohol analysis carried out DATE . It imposed a fine of CARDINAL NORP schillings ( CARDINAL ) on him with DATE imprisonment in default .

The applicant appealed on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat ) held a hearing at which it questioned the applicant and the QUANTITY police officers who had carried out the breathalyser tests and a further witness .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , having held a hearing , dismissed the applicant 's appeal . It found that the applicant had driven his car on DATE at TIME having a proportion of alcohol in his breath exceeding the statutory level . He admitted to having consumed alcohol in TIME . Having run out of petrol , the applicant had left the car and had gone to the next petrol station . Upon his return , he had been requested by CARDINAL police officers to undergo breathalyser tests . The tests , carried out at CARDINAL and TIME respectively , had yielded results of CARDINAL and QUANTITY . ORG dismissed the applicant 's request to take an expert opinion in order to show that the difference in these results was due to his having consumed one and a QUANTITY of beer when he went to fetch petrol and that he had , before that , not been driving his car in a state of drunkenness . Having regard to the instructions for use of the breathalyser at issue , ORG noted that the difference in the CARDINAL test results was not significant .

In any case , it found that the applicant 's defence was not credible as he had stated at his first interrogation to have parked his car at TIME and had explicitly answered the police officers ' question whether he had consumed alcohol after that in the negative . It was only in his written submissions of DATE that he had claimed to have consumed more beer after TIME The bill submitted by the applicant did not support his defence as the innkeeper had stated that he had given the applicant this bill DATE after the incident on his explicit request . He had not remembered the applicant and could not confirm whether he had actually consumed beer at his inn at the relevant time .

The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) on DATE . He complained in particular about the refusal of his request to take an expert opinion . On DATE ORG submitted observations in reply . The applicant made further submissions on DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG , having deliberated on DATE , dismissed the applicant 's complaint as being unfounded . It found in particular that ORG assessment of evidence did not suffer from any defects and that it had given detailed and convincing reasons for its refusal to take the expert opinion requested by the applicant .

The decision was served on the applicant 's counsel on DATE .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

Anatoly Kovler;Antonella Mularoni;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu Bîrsan;Elisabet Fura;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Jautrite Briede;Jean-Paul Costa;Karel Jungwiert;Lucius Caflisch;Luzius Wildhaber;Matti Pellonpää;Mindia Ugrekhelidze;Nicolas Bratza;Renate Jaeger;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicants are a married couple , PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) and PERSON ( “ the second applicant ” ) , and their daughter , PERSON ( “ the third applicant ” ) . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The second and third applicants have NORP nationality , while the first applicant has no nationality . All CARDINAL live in GPE ( GPE ) .

The first CARDINAL applicants entered NORP territory in DATE and DATE respectively , when the territory formed part of GPE . The second applicant , who was a member of the NORP armed forces at the time , was stationed in GPE and remained there until he finished his military service in DATE . The third applicant and her elder sister , PERSON , were born in NORP territory .

Following the break - up of GPE and the restoration of NORP independence in DATE , the applicants , who had previously been NORP nationals , became stateless .

In DATE Tatjana married a NORP national . She is mother to CARDINAL minor children who have NORP nationality .

In DATE the first and second applicants applied to ORG of the ORG ’s ORG ( GPE ministrijas GPE un imigrācijas departaments – “ the GPE ” ) to obtain permanent - resident status and to be entered in the register of residents of GPE Latvijas ORG reģistrs ) . However , on DATE the ORG issued them with temporary residence permits only .

The first and second applicants then lodged an application with ORG , requesting it to direct the ORG to enter them in the register of residents as permanent residents . In a judgment delivered on DATE , which was upheld on DATE following an appeal on points of law , the court allowed their application . It considered that under the legislation in force the situation of the second applicant , who had left the army before CARDINAL DATE – the date on which GPE had declared its independence – could not be equated with that of a non - NORP serviceman temporarily present on NORP soil , who would be entitled to a temporary residence permit only . ORG subsequently entered all the applicants in the register of residents .

In the meantime , in DATE , the first CARDINAL applicants had each obtained CARDINAL former NORP passports and had therefore been able to have their place of residence registered in GPE ( GPE ) despite already having a registered place of residence in GPE ( pieraksts or dzīvesvietas reģistrācija ) . The GPE only discovered this fact in DATE .

In CARDINAL decisions dated DATE and DATE , the ORG police decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the applicants for using false identity papers . However , ORG imposed an administrative penalty of CARDINAL lati ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) on them for breach of the passport regulations . ORG also applied to ORG to have the proceedings reopened to consider new facts , alleging fraudulent behaviour on the part of the first CARDINAL applicants . ORG also noted that the third applicant had followed the example of her parents and sister in DATE , obtaining CARDINAL passports and having her place of residence registered in both GPE and GPE .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , ruling on the application for the proceedings to be reopened , allowed the ORG ’s application , quashed its own judgment of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the removal of the ORG names from the register of residents . The first CARDINAL applicants appealed to ORG which , by an order of DATE , quashed the decision in question and referred the case back to ORG .

In DATE the second and third applicants applied for and obtained NORP nationality . On DATE the NORP embassy in GPE issued them with ORG passports .

In DATE the third applicant , by now an adult , was joined as a party to the proceedings before ORG .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG for the implementation of the agreement between the governments of GPE and GPE on the social welfare of retired military personnel of GPE and their family members residing on the territory of GPE ( “ the NORP agreement ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) requested ORG ( GPE ministrijas GPE un migrācijas lietu pārvalde – “ the ORG ” ) , which had replaced the ORG , to issue the applicants with permanent residence permits , on the ground that they had the right to remain in GPE under the above agreement . In a second letter sent DATE , ORG informed ORG that the first applicant had neither NORP nor any other nationality .

In DATE the applicants submitted a further request to ORG . In a joint memorial they argued that , as the second and third applicants had NORP nationality , they had the right to obtain permanent residence permits under the NORP - Latvian agreement . The first applicant , who had no nationality , contended that she was entitled to the status of a “ permanently resident noncitizen ( nepilsonis ) ” under the PERSON on the status of former GPE citizens without NORP or other citizenship ( “ LAW ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In court , the applicants made no attempt to deny the actions of which they had been accused by ORG and the ORG , but maintained that those actions had been in breach only of NORP law and therefore had no effect on their rights in GPE .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG Instance allowed the ORG request . It noted that the applicants’ place of residence had been legally registered in ORG DATE and that they had lived there from then onwards . In the court ’s view , since the procuring of second passports by the applicants and their registration in GPE were illegal and void acts , they had no impact on the applicants’ legal status in GPE . The court also noted that the second applicant was on the list of former members of the NORP armed forces in receipt of a NORP military pension and entitled to remain in GPE . That list had been drawn up jointly by the QUANTITY governments in accordance with the NORP - Latvian agreement . Consequently , the court held that the first applicant was entitled to apply for a passport as a “ permanently resident non - citizen ” and that the second and third applicants were entitled to obtain permanent residence permits .

The ORG appealed against that judgment to ORG . In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal , endorsing the findings and reasoning of the firstinstance court .

The ORG then lodged an appeal on points of law with the ORG of ORG . In a judgment of DATE , the ORG quashed ORG judgment and declared it null and void . The ORG found that secretly obtaining CARDINAL passports and registering places of residence in CARDINAL different countries , failing to disclose the second passports , and supplying false information to the authorities when applying for regularisation constituted serious breaches of NORP immigration law . The ORG also referred to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , sub - paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW , which stated that the status of “ permanently resident noncitizen ” could not be granted to persons who , on DATE , had their permanent place of residence registered in a member ORG of ORG ( of which GPE is a member ) . The ORG considered that the provision in question was fully applicable to the applicants’ case .

The ORG also noted that the judgment of ORG of DATE had been subsequently set aside when the proceedings were reopened , thereby depriving the entry of the applicants in the register of residents of any legal basis . It concluded that the second and third applicants , since they did not satisfy the requirements of the PERSON on aliens and stateless persons ( entry and residence ) ( “ LAW ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , were also not entitled to obtain permanent residence permits . Consequently , the ORG set aside the judgment of DATE and referred the case back to the appellate court .

For procedural reasons , the case was transferred to ORG which , in a judgment of DATE , rejected the applicants’ application , reaffirming the reasons given by the ORG . Unlike ORG , ORG considered that the first applicant had NORP nationality under GPE Nationality Act . With regard to the second applicant , it considered that the fact that an individual was on the list of retired army personnel merely attested to the fact that the person concerned actually resided in GPE and was in receipt of a NORP military pension ; it did not in any sense confer entitlement to a residence permit .

In a judgment of DATE , the ORG of ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law , endorsing in substance the arguments of ORG .

In CARDINAL letters dated DATE and DATE , the ORG reminded the applicants that they were required to leave GPE .

On TIME , the first applicant , PERSON , was summoned to the regional headquarters of the security police ( PERSON policija ) . An officer of the security police asked her a number of questions , some of them relating to her application to the ORG and to an interview she had given to journalists from a NORP television channel on the subject . In particular , the police asked the first applicant how the NORP journalists had made contact with her , how she had heard about the possibility of lodging an individual application with the ORG , how she had found lawyers to represent her before the ORG , and how she had known that certain persons had bribed ORG officials in order to obtain NORP residence permits . In addition , the police officer asked her several questions about her professional career and about the members of her family .

The dialogue between the first applicant and the police officer , as reconstructed by the applicant and sent to her lawyers on DATE , ran as follows :

“ Police officer : How did the television channel ORG find you ?

Applicant : We had had telephone calls in DATE [ and ] DATE . At the time , we had refused to meet them , but journalists are bloodhounds , they always get what they want .

Police officer : And then ?

Applicant : They telephoned from GPE and said they wanted to meet us and talk to us . I agreed . They wanted to talk to several [ people ] who had brought cases before the courts .

Police officer : When did they phone ?

Applicant : It was a DATE TIME , TIME They came round on the DATE , at TIME If you want to come round [ too ] , you ’re welcome . Our door is always open .

Police officer : You said that you PERSON taken the case all the way to ORG , did n’t you ?

Applicant : Yes , I did . There were CARDINAL sets of proceedings ; we fought and fought [ again ] , and eventually we turned to ORG , because of the people in charge in the [ Directorate ] . They saw it as a game to get us deported from the country , while we wanted to prove that we were in the right . [ Their ] attitude towards us was based on prejudice : we had n’t broken any laws in GPE .

Police officer : How and where did you find out that you could apply to ORG ?

Applicant : The issue of our regularisation was discussed several times by ORG . We had approached ORG . We had lawyers . The representatives of ORG and the [ ORG ] had told us at the last meeting that they had no objections to raise or accusations to make as far as we were concerned , and that everything would be fine . Unfortunately , they have n’t kept their promises so far . ORG advised us to lodge an application with ORG about the length of the proceedings if the case was n’t resolved .

Police officer : And how did you find those lawyers ?

Applicant : With the help of the lawyers in the social welfare office we were registered with .

Police officer : Perhaps your lawyers threatened you , saying that if you did n’t give information to ORG they would stop working with you ?

Applicant : That ’s nonsense . They told us not to give information to anyone without their consent , not even to ORT ...

Police officer : You said that over DATE people had lodged applications ?

Applicant : Yes , I did . Actually , there are even more people involved : I meant that there were CARDINAL families . We ’ve all been through the courts : some of us once , some twice , and some even CARDINAL times . A lot of people solved the problem by paying backhanders .

Police officer : How do you know that ?

Applicant : We were all in the same boat and we helped one another . We used to say to one another that if someone had money , it was better for him to pay , to avoid a trial . [ The first applicant then gave the example of CARDINAL families whose status had been regularised after they had bribed ORG officials ; she named CARDINAL of the officials concerned . ]

Police officer : And why did you not come to us ?

Applicant : We did n’t know you could help us .

Police officer : How did you come by the information that CARDINAL people had lodged applications ?

Applicant : Actually , the figure is higher . We ’ve all had a lot of problems . [ The applicant dwelt in detail on CARDINAL specific cases concerning the regularisation of persons in a similar situation to her own . ]

Police officer : What does your husband think about the case ?

Applicant : He supports [ me ] : what would you do ?

[ The police officer then asked the applicant a series of questions about her education , her work , her husband ’s work and the family ’s financial situation . ]

Police officer : Once more , how did you find out that you could take your case to ORG ?

Applicant : We read the papers , we watch television ; the cases of GPE , PERSON , PERSON and several other families were reported in the media . We approached ORG , who gave us advice and even offered to [ help us ] find a lawyer . Strange , is n’t it ? It was very hard for us , having to bring a case against GPE before ORG , but all the avenues open to us to try and resolve the problem in GPE had been exhausted . It ’s the fault of the [ Directorate and its officials ] , who flout the law and force people to leave GPE . They ’re the ones who bring shame on GPE . We have n’t broken any law .

Police officer : When is the case going to be examined ?

Applicant : We do n’t know .

Police officer : What documents have you sent them ?

Applicant : The courts’ decisions . ”

The Government contested the accuracy of this record , particularly in view of the length of time that had elapsed between the interview itself and the drafting of the document . The first applicant conceded that the document was probably less than perfect , given that it had been drafted from memory DATE after the fact ; she acknowledged that several other questions ( which she could not recall ) might have been asked during the interview . However , she contended that her record reflected with sufficient accuracy the content and tone of the interview .

On DATE the Head of the ORG sent a letter to each of the applicants explaining the procedure to be followed in order to regularise their stay in GPE . The relevant passages of the letter sent to the first applicant ( PERSON ) read as follows :

“ ... The [ Directorate ] ... would remind you that , in accordance with the principle of proportionality , no order has hitherto been made for your deportation , and that it is open to you to regularise your stay in GPE in accordance with the [ country ’s ] legislation .

Under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Status of Stateless Persons Act , persons who are not considered to be nationals of any ORG under the laws of that ORG ... and who are legally resident in GPE , may obtain stateless - person status .

You satisfy the above requirements ...

In view of the above , the ORG is prepared to regularise your stay in GPE by entering your name in the register of residents as a stateless person [ resident ] in GPE and by issuing you with an identity document on that basis .

In order to complete the necessary formalities , you will need to go in person to the LOC district office of the ORG , bringing with you your identity papers , your birth certificate and CARDINAL photographs ... ”

The letters sent to the other CARDINAL applicants were similar in content . The letter to the second applicant ( PERSON ) stated in particular :

“ ... If your wife , PERSON , avails herself of the opportunity to regularise her stay in GPE in accordance with the provisions in force , you will be entitled , under LAW , to obtain a residence permit . The ORG is not aware of any reason which would prevent you from applying for and obtaining a residence permit in GPE .

Under the terms of section CARDINAL of LAW , only aliens residing in GPE on the basis of a residence permit may apply to the ORG for a residence permit ... In other cases , and where such a move accords with international human rights provisions and the interests of ORG , or on humanitarian grounds , the Head of the ORG may authorise the person concerned to submit the relevant papers to the ORG in order to apply for a residence permit . As no order has hitherto been made for your deportation , you may submit the relevant papers ... to the ORG district office of the Directorate ...

In view of the above , the ORG is prepared to issue you with a residence permit at your wife ’s place of residence , in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW , on condition that PERSON completes the necessary formalities in order to regularise her stay in GPE as a stateless person , and that she responds to the invitation from the LOC office of the Directorate ... ”

Lastly , the letter to the third applicant ( PERSON ) contained the following passages :

“ ... If your mother , PERSON , avails herself of the opportunity offered to her and , after completing the necessary formalities , regularises her stay in GPE in accordance with the provisions in force , you will be entitled , under LAW , to obtain a residence permit . The ORG is not aware of any reason which would prevent you from applying for and obtaining a residence permit in GPE .

The ORG would further inform you that , in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of LAW , in cases not provided for by the LAW , a temporary residence permit may be issued by the Minister of the ORG , where such a move is in accordance with the provisions of international law . Consequently , you are also entitled to apply to the Minister of the ORG for a residence permit valid for a period longer than that specified in section CARDINAL ) , sub - paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW . Furthermore , after a period of residence of DATE on the basis of a temporary residence permit , you may apply for a permanent residence permit in accordance with section FAC ) , sub - paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ... ”

In addition , a letter containing the above information concerning the CARDINAL applicants was sent to ORG . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the Head of the ORG signed CARDINAL decisions formally regularising the applicants’ status in GPE . More specifically , he ordered that the first applicant be entered in the register of residents as a “ stateless person ” , that she be issued with an identity document valid for DATE , and that the second and third applicants be issued with temporary residence permits valid for DATE and DATE respectively . However , regularisation of the status of the second and third applicants was contingent upon that of the first applicant . In other words , in order for PERSON and PERSON to obtain residence permits , PERSON first had to submit the relevant documents to the ORG .

None of the applicants complied with the instructions outlined above in order to obtain residence permits .

By Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG kabinets ) instructed the Minister of the ORG to issue PERSON and PERSON with DATE temporary residence permits , “ in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of the Immigration Act ” . In a letter sent on DATE , the Government informed ORG measure , pointing out that , after DATE had elapsed , the CARDINAL applicants in question could obtain permanent residence permits

On DATE the applicants applied to the ORG to have their stay regularised on the basis they had requested initially , that is , for the first applicant to be granted the status of “ permanently resident noncitizen ” and for the other CARDINAL applicants to be issued with permanent residence permits . The ORG replied on DATE , DATE . After outlining the background to the case before the domestic courts and in GPE , the ORG went on :

“ ... On DATE you stated that you would not consider the ORG ’s proposals until after ORG had delivered its judgment .

In accordance with ... ORG ... in force at the time , an order was given for PERSON to be issued with an identity document for stateless persons , and she was told that the authorities were willing to grant her stateless - person status . It was [ therefore ] open to PERSON to take advantage of that option , but she failed to do so . However , in accordance with the principle of respect for personal rights and the principle of legitimate expectation , the ORG has not set aside its decision of DATE in respect of PERSON . Consequently , it remains open to her to regularise her stay in GPE under section CARDINAL ) of LAW and paragraph CARDINAL of its transitional provisions . Since PERSON entitlement to stateless - person status ... was recognised before the entry into force of that LAW , were she to obtain an identity document for stateless persons she would also be issued with a permanent residence permit ... As for PERSON and PERSON , they would be entitled , on the same basis , to obtain temporary residence permits .

The ORG would further point out that , on DATE , ORG ... instructed the Minister of the ORG to issue PERSON and PERSON with DATE temporary residence permits , under section CARDINAL ) of LAW .

In view of the above , the ORG would remind you of the possibility of regularising your stay in GPE , on the following basis : PERSON may obtain stateless - person status and be issued with a permanent residence permit ; PERSON and PERSON , meanwhile , may apply for and obtain temporary residence permits , in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of LAW . ... ”

The remainder of the letter explained in detail to each of the applicants the procedure to be followed and the documents to be submitted in order to have their stay regularised , and the tax rates which applied for that purpose . The applicants did not take the steps indicated by the ORG .

On CARDINAL and DATE , the relevant official of the border police questioned the applicants , asking them why they had not regularised their stay . Following that conversation , the Commander of the border police requested details from the Head of the ORG concerning the applicants’ precise status in GPE . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the latter explained that , since DATE , there had been sufficient legal basis for issuing orders for the applicants’ deportation , but that no such orders had been issued on the grounds of proportionality and in view of the proceedings pending before ORG .

By a letter of DATE , the ORG reminded the applicants once more that they had the possibility of regularising their stay . No reply was forthcoming .

As matters stand , the applicants are resident in GPE without valid residence permits . According to the information supplied by the applicants , which has not been disputed by the Government , PERSON has been unemployed since DATE . PERSON works as a technician in a municipal communal heating plant in Alūksne ; despite being cautioned repeatedly by the authorities , his employer has consistently refused to dismiss him on the sole ground that he is illegally resident in GPE . PERSON , meanwhile , obtained a law degree from ORG ( PERSON institūts ) in DATE . The applicants contend that , owing to her irregular status , she has to date been unable to find work .

NORP legislation on nationality and immigration distinguishes several categories of persons , each with a specific status :

( a ) NORP citizens ( Latvijas Republikas pilsoņi ) , whose legal status is governed by LAW ( GPE likums ) ;

( b ) “ permanently resident non - citizens ” ( nepilsoņi ) – that is , citizens of the former GPE who lost their NORP citizenship following the break - up of the GPE but have not subsequently obtained any other nationality DATE who are governed by the Law of DATE on the status of former GPE citizens without NORP or other citizenship ( PERSON “ PERSON to bijušo ORG pilsoņu statusu , kuriem nav Latvijas vai citas valsts pilsonības ” – “ the NonCitizens Act ” ) ;

( c ) asylum - seekers and refugees , whose status is governed by LAW ( Patvēruma likums ) ;

( d ) “ stateless persons ” ( bezvalstnieki ) within the meaning of DATE Status of Stateless Persons Act ( Likums “ ORG bezvalstnieka statusu Latvijas NORP ” ) , read in conjunction with the PERSON of DATE on aliens and stateless persons ( entry and residence ) ( “ the Aliens Act ” ) and , since DATE , with LAW of DATE ( GPE likums ) . On DATE the Status of Stateless Persons Act was replaced by a new LAW ;

( e ) “ aliens ” in the broad sense of the term ( ārzemnieki ) , including foreign nationals ( ārvalstnieki ) and stateless persons ( bezvalstnieki ) falling solely within the ambit of LAW ( before DATE ) , and LAW ( after DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW formally set forth detailed criteria for obtaining the status of “ permanently resident non - citizen ” . In the version in force since DATE , the first paragraph of section CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ The persons governed by LAW – ‘ non - citizens’ – shall be those citizens of the former GPE , and their children , who are resident in GPE ... and who satisfy all the following criteria :

NORP on DATE they were registered as being resident within the territory of GPE , regardless of the status of their housing ; or their last registered place of residence by DATE was in GPE ; or a court has established that before the above - mentioned date they had been resident within NORP territory for not less than DATE ;

they do not have NORP citizenship ; and

NORP they are not and have not been citizens of any other ORG . ”

The relevant provisions of the former Status of Stateless Persons Act read as follows .

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) The status of stateless person may be granted to persons whose status is not defined either by the PERSON on the status of former GPE citizens without NORP or other citizenship or by LAW , provided they

NORP are legally resident in GPE .

( CARDINAL ) NORP persons who have obtained outside GPE documents attesting to the fact that they are stateless may obtain the status of stateless person in GPE only if they have obtained a permanent residence permit in GPE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL )

“ Stateless persons shall be issued with an identity document for stateless persons , which shall also serve as [ a ] travel document . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) NORP persons in GPE shall enjoy all the human rights enshrined in LAW [ Satversme ] .

( CARDINAL ) In addition to the rights referred to in the first paragraph of this section , stateless persons shall be entitled

NORP to leave and return to GPE freely ;

NORP to be joined by their spouse from outside the country , and by their own minor children or those dependent on their spouse , in accordance with the rules laid down by the Aliens and ORG ) Act ;

to preserve their native language , culture and traditions , provided these are not in breach of the law ;

( CARDINAL ) During their stay in GPE , stateless persons shall be bound by [ the provisions of ] NORP law . ”

DATE . On DATE ORG enacted a new LAW likums ) , which came into force on DATE and replaced the former Status of Stateless Persons Act . The relevant provisions of the new LAW read as follows .

“ In GPE , an individual may be recognised as a stateless person if no other ORG has recognised him or her as a national in accordance with its own laws . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) NORP In order to be recognised as a stateless person , the individual concerned must submit to the [ Directorate ] :

a [ written ] application ;

an identity document ;

a document issued by a competent body in the foreign ORG , to be determined by the ORG , certifying that the person concerned is not a national of that ORG and is not guaranteed nationality of that ORG , or a document certifying the impossibility of obtaining such a document .

( CARDINAL ) Where , for reasons beyond his or her control , the individual concerned is unable to produce CARDINAL of the documents referred to in points CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the first paragraph , an official instructed by the Head of the ORG shall decide whether or not to grant him or her the status of stateless person . The decision shall be taken on the basis of information available to the ORG supported by documentary evidence . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The stateless person shall reside in GPE in accordance with the provisions of LAW .

( CARDINAL ) A stateless person legally resident in GPE may obtain a travel document in accordance with the statutory arrangements ... ”

“ A stateless person legally resident in GPE shall enjoy the rights guaranteed by ... LAW DATE on the Status of Stateless Persons . ”

The relevant provisions of the former Aliens Act , in force prior to CARDINAL DATE , read as follows .

“ The Head of the ORG or of the regional office of the ORG shall issue a deportation order ...

( CARDINAL ) NORP if the alien or stateless person is in the country without a valid visa or residence permit ... ”

“ The individual concerned shall leave the territory of GPE within DATE after the deportation order has been served on him or her , provided that no appeal is lodged against the order in the manner prescribed in this section .

Persons in respect of whom a deportation order is issued may appeal against it within DATE to the Head of the ORG , who shall extend the residence permit pending consideration of the appeal .

An appeal against the decision of the Head of the ORG shall lie to the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the ORG ’s headquarters are situated , within DATE after the decision has been served . ”

Since DATE LAW cited above has no longer been in force ; it has been repealed and replaced by LAW . The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows .

“ The present Act uses the following definitions :

( CARDINAL ) an alien [ ārzemnieks ] – a person who is neither a NORP citizen nor a “ [ permanently resident ] non - citizen ” of GPE ;

“ In cases not covered by LAW , the temporary residence permit shall be granted by the Minister of the Interior , where the relevant decision accords with the provisions of international law or the interests of ORG , or on humanitarian grounds . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) In accordance with the arrangements laid down in the present LAW , the following persons may apply for a permanent residence permit :

an alien who has been resident without interruption in GPE for DATE immediately prior to submission of the application ... ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP In cases not covered by the present Act , the permanent residence permit shall be granted by the Minister of the Interior , where it accords with the interests of the State .

( CARDINAL ) The aliens referred to in paragraph CARDINAL , sub - paragraph ... CARDINAL , of this section may obtain a permanent residence permit if they have a command of the official language . The level of knowledge of the official language [ and ] the means of verifying that knowledge shall be determined by ORG .

( CARDINAL ) PERSON who do not satisfy the requirements set forth in paragraph CARDINAL of this section shall nevertheless be entitled to continue to reside in GPE on the basis of a temporary residence permit . ”

“ [ By way of exception , ] [ t]he Head of the ORG may authorise [ the person concerned ] to submit an application for a residence permit to the ORG , where such authorisation accords with the provisions of international law or the interests of ORG , or on humanitarian grounds . ”

“ ... When the time - limit set down [ for submitting an application for a residence permit ] has passed , the Head of the ORG may authorise [ the person concerned ] to submit the [ relevant ] documents , where such authorisation accords with the interests of ORG , or on grounds of force majeure or humanitarian grounds . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where a decision is taken to refuse an application by an alien for a residence permit or to withdraw his or her residence permit , an appeal may be lodged against that decision ... with the Head of the ORG , within DATE of the entry into force of the decision .

( CARDINAL ) Where the Head of the ORG refuses an application for a residence permit an appeal may be lodged ... with the courts against that decision , in the manner prescribed by law ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The [ relevant ] official of the ORG shall issue a deportation order and determine the length of the ban on re - entering NORP territory , requesting the alien concerned to leave GPE within DATE , where he or she has ... acted in breach of the rules on the entry and residence of aliens in GPE . ...

( CARDINAL ) The Head of the ORG may set aside a deportation order ... or suspend execution thereof on humanitarian grounds . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The alien concerned may appeal against the deportation order and the length of the ban on re - entering NORP territory laid down therein to the Head of the ORG , within DATE of the order ’s entry into force . He or she shall have the right to remain in GPE while the appeal is being considered .

( CARDINAL ) The alien concerned may appeal before the courts against the decision of the Head of the ORG concerning the deportation order and the length of the ban on reentering NORP territory laid down therein , within DATE of the decision ’s entry into force . The lodging of an appeal with the court shall not suspend execution of the decision . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Within DATE of establishment of the facts detailed in the present paragraph , the [ relevant ] official of the ORG shall take a forcible expulsion decision in respect of the alien and determine the length of the ban on re - entering NORP territory ... , where :

NORP the alien has not left GPE within DATE of receiving the deportation order , as required by CARDINAL ) of the present LAW , and has not appealed against the order under LAW ;

( CARDINAL ) In the cases referred to in the first sub - paragraph of paragraph CARDINAL of this section , no appeal shall lie against the forcible expulsion decision ...

( CARDINAL ) The Head of the ORG may set aside a forcible expulsion decision or stay its execution on humanitarian grounds . ”

At the time of the facts reported by the applicants , the relevant provisions of LAW ( Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodekss ) read as follows .

Section CARDINAL

“ ... Use of a passport which has been replaced by a new passport shall be punishable by a fine of CARDINAL lati . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ Failure to provide the offices of the NORP ORG with the information to be entered in the register of residents within the time allowed shall be punishable by a fine of between CARDINAL and QUANTITY lati . ”

An agreement between GPE and GPE on the social welfare of retired military personnel of GPE and their family members residing on the territory of GPE was signed in GPE on DATE . It was ratified by GPE on DATE and came into force on DATE . Under the terms of the second paragraph of LAW , persons to whom the agreement applied and who were permanently resident in NORP territory before DATE retained the right to reside without hindrance in GPE if they so wished .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( NORP procesa likums ) , in force since DATE , provides :

“ An administrative act may not be executed if DATE have elapsed since it became enforceable . In calculating the limitation period , any period during which implementation of the administrative act was suspended shall be deducted . ”

The main provisions governing interviews similar to that complained of by the first applicant are contained in the PERSON of DATE on operational measures ( Operatīvās darbības likums ) . The “ operational measures ” referred to in the PERSON cover all operations , covert or otherwise , aimed at protecting individuals , the independence and sovereignty of the ORG , the constitutional system , the country ’s economic and scientific potential , and classified information against external or internal threats ( section CARDINAL ) . Operational measures are aimed in particular at preventing and detecting criminal offences , tracing the perpetrators of criminal offences and gathering evidence ( section CARDINAL ) .

The most straightforward measure is the “ intelligence - related operational procedure ” ( operatīvā izzināšana ) , designed to “ obtain information on events , persons or objects ” ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The procedure takes CARDINAL of the following forms :

( i ) an “ operational request for intelligence ” ( operatīvā aptauja ) , during which “ the persons concerned are asked questions about the facts of interest to the [ relevant ] authorities ” ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) ;

( ii ) “ operational intelligence gathering ” ( operatīvā uzziņa ) , which involves “ gathering information relating to specific persons ” ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) ;

( iii ) “ operational clarification of intelligence ” ( operatīvā noskaidrošana ) , consisting in obtaining information by covert or indirect means where there is reason to suspect that the informer will be unwilling to supply the information directly ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

All operational measures must be implemented in strict compliance with the law and human rights . In particular , no harm – physical or otherwise – may be caused to the persons concerned , nor may they be subjected to violence or threats ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) ) . Any person who considers that he or she has suffered harm as a result of the actions of a member of the security forces may lodge a complaint with the prosecuting authorities or the relevant court ( section CARDINAL ) .

Under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL DATE National Security Establishments Act ( NORP drošības iestāžu likums ) , the security police come under the supervision of ORG . They have powers to deploy operational measures in order to combat corruption .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Rajko Pirnat

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG Attorney - General .

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

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter PERSON made a contract of purchase with a company named GPE zadruga ORG ( “ SCT ” ) to buy a house which ORG was planning to build . GPE later divorced and changed her name to S.B.

On DATE the applicant and her husband instituted civil proceedings on behalf of their daughter ( “ the plaintiff ” ) in ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) requesting that ORG comply with the contract and seeking damages for non - completion . They had legal representation in these proceedings .

On DATE , after CARDINAL hearings were held , the court issued an interim judgment upholding ORG ’s claim on the merits .

On DATE CARDINAL ORG lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) .

On DATE the court allowed the appeal and set aside the first - instance court ’s judgment as it was premature .

In order to estimate the amount of damage incurred by the plaintiff , the first - instance court appointed CARDINAL experts in construction engineering , CARDINAL of whom was subsequently replaced by another expert .

Until DATE , DATE the Convention took effect with respect to GPE , the court held CARDINAL hearings .

On DATE the reform of the NORP judicial system took effect and the case was transferred to ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) .

On DATE the plaintiff requested that a date be scheduled for a hearing .

On DATE the court held a hearing .

On DATE the court , upon the plaintiff ’s request , appointed a new expert in construction engineering who delivered an expert opinion on DATE .

On DATE the court held a hearing where the plaintiff increased her claim . As a result , ORG raised an objection to the amendment , arguing that the claim was barred by prescription ( zastaranje ) . It also objected to the subject - matter jurisdiction of the court . The latter dismissed the objections in a separate decision issued that DATE .

On DATE SCT appealed against this decision to ORG .

On DATE the court allowed the appeal , set aside the contested decision and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh examination .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and declared the case out of its jurisdiction . It transferred the case to ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and heard one of the appointed experts .

On DATE the court sought additional information from the appointed expert which he provided DATE .

On DATE the court held a hearing . SCT informed the court that bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted against it . The court decided to issue a written judgment .

The judgment , upholding ORG claim in part , was served on the plaintiff on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer also received a copy of the judgment .

On DATE the judgment of DATE became final .


Preliminary objection dismissed (ratione materiae);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Pecuniary damage - Government to pay the judgment debt

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant is a privately owned commercial company , ORG , registered in GPE ( the GPE ) . The company ’s actual address is in GPE ( GPE ) . It was represented before the ORG by its director , PERSON PERSON , who resides in GPE .

NORP In DATE ORG s.r.o . ( “ COM ” ) , a limited liability company registered in GPE ( GPE ) instituted proceedings in ORG at ORG ( ORG комерційний арбітражний суд при ORG палаті ORG the ORG ” ) against an open joint - stock company , PERSON , seeking an award for breach of contract . In particular , ORG claimed that PERSON , a company registered in the city of PERSON ( GPE ) , with PERCENT of its shares owned by the ORG , had failed to comply with its contractual obligations concerning the processing of raw materials .

On DATE ORG made an arbitration award ( case ORG no . PERSON ) ordering the PERSON company to pay ORG the amount of GPE ( ORG ) in compensation .

On DATE ORG lodged an application with the Ivano - Frankivsk Regional Arbitration Court ( “ the ORG ” ) seeking a ruling that ORG was a creditor in relation to the PERSON company , on the basis of DATE award .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Bailiffs’ Service ” ) instituted enforcement proceedings against PERSON in order to collect the debt from it as ordered by ORG . These enforcement proceedings were joined to the other enforcement proceedings that were pending against PERSON .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company ’s request to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against PERSON .

On DATE and DATE ORG initiated the attachment of the property owned by PERSON . On DATE ORG quashed the decision on the attachment of PERSON ’s assets .

On DATE the property owned by PERSON was attached again . On DATE ORG decided to sell some of the property that had been attached ( the Oriana company ’s polymerisation workshop ) .

On DATE ORG again requested ORG to institute bankruptcy proceedings against PERSON . It also sought a ruling including it on the list of PERSON ’s creditors .

DATE ORG took a number of measures to obtain payment of the debts accumulated by PERSON . In particular , it sent payment orders to the debtor ’s bank , seized its assets , prohibited the unauthorised sale of property belonging to PERSON and attempted to sell some of the company ’s property in order to pay its debts . It also attached the PERSON company ’s bank accounts and its shares ( including the shares which PERSON owned in the PERSON company ) .

At the same time , the enforcement proceedings were suspended several times because PERSON contested the bailiffs’ actions before the courts and because its numerous creditors filed applications with the court seeking an insolvency order in respect of the company .

On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Commercial Court ( formerly the GPE - Frankivsk ORG ) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against PERSON . These proceedings are still pending .

On DATE ORG requested the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Commercial Court to include it on the list of creditors of the PERSON company .

On DATE the applicant company concluded a contract with ORG concerning the transfer of the latter ’s right to claim the debt awarded by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant company and ORG requested that ORG recognise the applicant company as the creditor in the arbitration proceedings against PERSON on the basis of the above - mentioned contract . On DATE the President of ORG dismissed their request , stating that ORG had been dissolved after having made the award of DATE .

On DATE the applicant company and ORG requested that the GPE - Frankivsk ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) declare the applicant company to be legally entitled to the debt awarded to ORG by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant company and ORG requested ORG to change the creditor in the enforcement proceedings on the basis of the contract .

On DATE the applicant company and ORG requested ORG to declare that the applicant company was the PERSON company ’s creditor and to substitute the applicant company for ORG as a party to the enforcement proceedings on the same grounds as mentioned above .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant company ’s request . It declared the applicant company to be PERSON ’s creditor in respect of the debt of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL resulting from the arbitration award of DATE .

On DATE the applicant company and ORG requested ORG to substitute the applicant company for ORG in the enforcement proceedings against PERSON .

On DATE ORG substituted the applicant company for the original creditor in the enforcement proceedings on the basis of the ruling of DATE .

On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Commercial Court ( “ the Regional Commercial Court ” ) ruled that ORG had to discontinue the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writs of enforcement to PERSON ’s property administrator ( розпорядник майна ) .

On DATE the applicant company requested ORG to amend the list of PERSON ’s creditors and to include it on this list on the basis of the contract of DATE and the ruling of ORG of DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant company ’s request and ordered that the administrator of the Oriana company ’s property make the relevant amendments to the list of creditors .

On DATE the applicant company requested to be informed whether ORG had substituted it for ORG in the list of creditors in the enforcement proceedings against PERSON .

The enforcement proceedings are still pending .

Under LAW of the PERSON ( ORG PERSON відновлення платоспроможності боржника або визнання його банкрутом ” ) , a commercial court is entitled to order a moratorium on debt recovery from a company which is the subject of insolvency proceedings . The moratorium entails a prohibition on execution by ORG of judgments against the company concerned . The same section provides that a company protected by the moratorium is immune from any fines and other sanctions for non - fulfilment or improper fulfilment of its financial obligations during the moratorium .

The Law ( ORG Про введення мораторiю на примусову реалiзацiю TIME ” ) aims at protecting ORG interests with regard to the sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the ORG holds PERCENT of the share capital . A moratorium on the enforcement of judgment debts has been introduced until the mechanism for the forced sale of the property of such undertakings is improved . No time - limit has been set .

Section CARDINAL of the PERSON provides that the prohibition on the forced sale of assets includes the execution of writs by ORG on the assets belonging to such companies . The PERSON therefore stays the execution of all writs by ORG in respect of the assets of undertakings in which the ORG holds PERCENT of the share capital .

Under LAW , in the event of delay in the fulfilment of its financial obligations , a debtor must , upon a claim by the creditor , pay the amount of the debt , plus any interest payable at the officially established inflation rate during the default period .

Chapter DATE ( “ Compensation for damage ” ) of the Civil Code provides for compensation for damage and establishes the grounds for such compensation . LAW ( “ Protection of property ” ) of the LAW guarantees protection of property and allows for court action in such matters . Also , Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ( “ Reassignment of debts ” ) of LAW provide for the conclusion of transfer contracts and the reassignment of rights to claim debt recovery .

Under LAW ( ORG “ PERSON виконавче провадження ” ) , the enforcement of judgments is entrusted to ORG . Under LAW of the LAW , the creditor may file a complaint against actions or omissions of ORG with the head of the competent department of that service or with a local court . Section CARDINAL of the LAW entitles the creditor to institute court proceedings against a legal person entrusted with the enforcement of a judgment on account of the inadequate enforcement or non - enforcement of that judgment , and to receive compensation .

Under LAW , awards made by arbitration tribunals ( третейські суди ) are subject to enforcement by ORG ( section CARDINAL ) of the LAW ) and are therefore treated as equivalent to judgments delivered by domestic courts .

Section CARDINAL of the Act ( ORG “ Про державну виконавчу службу ” ) provides for the liability of bailiffs for any inadequate performance of their duties , and for compensation for damage caused by a bailiff when enforcing a judgment . Under LAW of the LAW , acts and omissions of the bailiff can be challenged before a superior official or the courts .

There have been several resolutions of ORG in relation to the financial situation of the PERSON company :

( a ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( on measures aimed at preventing PERSON ’s bankruptcy and on the transfer of the company ’s management to the PERSON enterprise ) ;

( b ) no . CARDINAL of DATE , which quashed the previous resolution on PERSON ( it also related to measures aimed at ensuring PERSON ’s financial and economic well - being and the restructuring of its debts ) ;

( c ) resolution no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( on the approval of the list of enterprises exempt from land tax payment in DATE ) ;

( d ) no . CARDINAL-p of DATE ( on privatisation of the Oriana company ) ;

( e ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( on payment of PERSON ’s debts for the loans it received ) ;

( f ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( suspending privatisation of PERSON , following the sale of PERCENT of shares in the Oriana company to PERSON , a closed joint - stock company founded by PERSON and PERSON , a NORP company ) .

On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a procedure for payment of PERSON ’s debts from the ORG budget , amounting to ORG CARDINAL .

On a number of occasions the Government included PERSON on the list of ORG - owned companies which had strategic importance for GPE ’s economic well - being and security and were thus to be excluded from privatisation ( see , for instance , resolutions nos . DATE and DATE of the Cabinet of Ministers of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) .

The Government also undertook to fund compensation for environmental damage caused by the PERSON company ’s operations ( resolution no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ) .

In its resolution of CARDINAL DATE ORG adopted an action plan providing for the elimination of environmental damage caused by the operation of PERSON , an enterprise belonging to the PERSON company . The action plan provided for the allocation of CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) from the ORG budget for necessary environmental work during DATE .

In decision no . CARDINAL of DATE the Prime Minister ordered the ORG to examine PERSON ’s financial problems and to take the necessary steps for its economic development .

Also , it ensues from the report of DATE by ORG that the ORG , and in particular ORG , managed PERSON ’s “ corporate rights ” ( its corporate investments ) . In particular , on DATE ORG appointed the ORG ’s representative to PERSON ’s supervisory board and ordered that the relevant structural department of ORG should issue a letter of authority for the representative enabling him to manage the ORG ’s shares in the company .

In its judgment ORG found that LAW DATE on the introduction of a moratorium on the forced sale of property complied with LAW . It also held that the PERSON at issue did not violate the constitutional principle of the binding nature of court judgments . Court judgments requiring the forced sale of the property of enterprises , given both prior to and after the PERSON was adopted , had not been set aside ; they remained in force , and their enforcement was merely suspended until the mechanism for the forced sale of property was improved . That meant that the PERSON extended the term for enforcement of judgments during that period ( “ period of legislative improvement ” ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW of the LAW , concerning the recognition and enforcement of awards , read as follows :

“ In matters governed by LAW , no court shall intervene except where so provided in the present Act . ”

“ CARDINAL . The functions referred to in sections ORG ) , CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL shall be performed by the President of ORG .

NORP The functions referred to in sections CARDINAL ) and GPE ) shall be performed by ORG of GPE , regional appeal courts or appeal courts of the cities of GPE and PERSON , depending on where the arbitration takes place . ” ( On DATE the Verkhovna Rada amended this provision and allowed the local district courts of first instance to perform these functions . )

“ CARDINAL . An arbitration award , irrespective of the country in which it was made , shall be recognised as binding and , upon a written application to the competent court , shall be enforced subject to the provisions of this section and of section CARDINAL .

The party claiming an award or applying for its enforcement shall supply the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof , and the original arbitration agreement referred to in section CARDINAL or a duly certified copy thereof . If the award or agreement is made in a foreign language , the party shall supply a duly certified translation thereof into the NORP or LANGUAGE language . ”

“ ... CARDINAL . An award of ORG shall be carried out by the parties voluntarily within the time limit indicated by ORG . If the award does not indicate any time limit , it shall be carried out immediately . Awards not carried out within the applicable time limit shall be enforced in accordance with law and international treaties . ”

The relevant extracts from the Rules of ORG ( as approved by the decision of the ORG of ORG DATE , LAW no . CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , with amendments resulting from the decision of CARDINAL DATE of the ORG of ORG ) provide as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL . An arbitration award may be challenged in court only by means of an application for setting aside in accordance with paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Rule CARDINAL of the present Rules .

An arbitration award may be set aside in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of LAW by the Shevchenkivsky ORG of GPE only if :

( CARDINAL ) the party making the application for setting aside furnishes proof that :

a party to the arbitration agreement referred to in Rule CARDINAL.CARDINAL above was subject to an incapacity ; or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or , in the absence of any indication thereof , under the law of GPE ; or

a party was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present its case ; or

the award was made regarding a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration , or , where it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration , provided that the decisions on the matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted , only that part of the award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside ; or

the composition of ORG or the arbitration proceedings were not in accordance with the agreement of the parties , unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of LAW from which the parties can not derogate , or , in the absence of such agreement , were not in accordance with this LAW ; or

( CARDINAL ) the court finds that :

the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of GPE ; or

the award is in conflict with the public policy of GPE .

An application for setting aside may not be made after DATE have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the award or , if the request had been made under Rules CARDINAL - CARDINAL.CARDINAL above , from the date on which that request had been disposed of by ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL . An award by ORG shall be final . It shall be executed by the parties voluntarily within the time - limit indicated by ORG .

If the award does not indicate any time - limit , it shall be executed immediately .

An arbitration award shall be recognised as binding and , in the event of refusal to execute it voluntarily , it shall be enforced depending on the respondent ’s location .

If the debtor is in GPE , the award by ORG at the UCCI shall be enforced upon an application in writing to the competent court at the place of the debtor ’s location in accordance with LAW and the rules of civil procedure in GPE .

If the debtor is abroad , the claimant ’s application in writing shall be communicated to the competent court of the country where the debtor is located and in accordance with LAW of FAC on ORG ( DATE ) or an inter - State agreement , the relevant court of the Contracting State shall recognise and enforce awards of ORG in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is being relied upon .

To obtain the recognition and enforcement of the award , the party applying for recognition and enforcement shall , at the time of the application , supply to the competent ORG court the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof , and also the original arbitration agreement referred to in Rule CARDINAL.CARDINAL above or a duly certified copy thereof . If the said application , award or agreement is not made in an official language of the country in which the award is being relied upon , the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into such language in CARDINAL copies . The translation shall be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agency . ”


CASE OF SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 2)

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Free expression of the opinion of the people;Stand for election);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Freedom from attachment)

The applicants , who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , are NORP nationals . They were members of ORG and the DEP ( Democracy Party PERSON ) , a political party which was dissolved by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the DEP was founded and the appropriate declaration submitted to ORG .

On DATE ORG at ORG ( “ ORG Counsel ” ) applied to ORG for the DEP to be dissolved . In his application he accused the DEP of having infringed the principles of the LAW and the law on political parties . He considered that declarations made by various members of the DEP 's central committee and its former chairman during CARDINAL meetings held abroad ( at GPE in GPE and GPE in GPE ) were likely to undermine the integrity of the ORG and national unity .

On DATE ORG decided of its own motion to obtain the oral submissions of certain interested parties . Thus , on DATE it took evidence from the applicant Mr PERSON , in his capacity as the vice - chairman of the DEP , and from PERSON , in his capacity as the party 's legal representative .

On DATE ORG lifted the parliamentary immunity of some of the DEP 's MPs , including that of the applicants , in response to a series of applications made by the public prosecutor at ORG .

On DATE Mr Dicle and Mr Doğan were arrested as they were leaving parliament , and taken into police custody . On DATE the same thing happened to Mr Sakık , PERSON and PERSON . The arrest of PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON , who had remained inside the parliament building , was prevented by the Speaker of ORG on the ground that they were still members of parliament .

On DATE ORG ordered the dissolution of the DEP on the ground that it had undermined the territorial integrity of the ORG and national unity .

ORG also declared that the parliamentary seats of all the applicants were forfeited as a secondary measure attending the decision to dissolve the DEP . The measure was not applied to CARDINAL MPs who had recently left the party .

On DATE , fearful of the consequences of the criminal proceedings brought against them , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , Mr Aydar , Mr PERSON and PERSON went abroad ( to GPE ) .

On DATE Mr PERSON and PERSON went to the public prosecutor 's office with their lawyer and were placed in custody .

On DATE ORG filed submissions in which he accused the applicants of separatism and undermining the integrity of the ORG , both of these being capital offences under LAW .

ORG gave judgment on DATE . Applying CARDINAL of the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( Law no . ORG ) , it sentenced Mr PERSON to DATE imprisonment for separatist propaganda . PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON were each sentenced to DATE imprisonment for membership of an armed gang pursuant to LAW and Mr PERSON was sentenced to DATE imprisonment for assisting and supporting an armed gang , an offence under LAW .

On an appeal on points of law by the applicants and ORG on DATE , ORG quashed PERSON and PERSON convictions and ordered their release on the ground that they had contravened only section CARDINAL of the Prevention of Terrorism Act . The ORG upheld the other applicants ' convictions .

NORP The relevant provisions of the LAW provide as follows :

“ The fundamental aims and duties of the ORG shall be to safeguard the independence and integrity of the NORP nation , its territorial unity , the LOC and democracy , to ensure the well - being , peace and happiness of both individuals and society , and to endeavour to remove any political , economic or social barrier restricting the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in a manner incompatible with the principles of equality before the law and justice and to secure the conditions required for the material and spiritual development of the individual . ”

“ Everyone shall be equal before the law without any distinction based on language , race , colour , sex , political opinion , philosophical belief , religion , membership of a religious sect or other similar grounds .

No privileges shall be granted to any individual , family , group or class .

Organs of ORG and administrative authorities shall be required to comply in everything they do with the principle of equality before the law . ”

“ Political parties shall not engage in activities other than those referred to in their constitutions and programmes , nor shall they disregard the restrictions laid down by LAW , on pain of permanent dissolution . ...

The decisions and internal running of political parties shall not be contrary to democratic principles . ...

Immediately a political party is formed , ORG shall verify as a matter of priority that its constitution and programme and the legal position of its founder members are consistent with the LAW and the laws of the land . He shall also monitor its activities .

Political parties may be dissolved by ORG , on application by ORG .

Founder members and leaders , at whatever level , of political parties which have been permanently dissolved may not become founder members , leaders or auditors of any new political party , nor shall a new party be formed if a majority of its members previously belonged to a party which has been dissolved . ”

“ ... Members and leaders whose declarations and activities lead to the dissolution of a political party may not be founder members , leaders or auditors of another political party for DATE from the date on which the reasoned decision to dissolve the party is published in ORG ... ”

“ ... The term of office of a member of parliament whose words and deeds have , according to ORG judgment , led to the dissolution of his party , and that of other members who belonged to the dissolved party on DATE when the action for dissolution was brought , shall end on the date when the Presidency of ORG is notified of the dissolution order . ”

“ ... The term of office of a member of parliament whose words and deeds have , according to ORG judgment , led to the dissolution of his party , shall end on DATE when that judgment is published in ORG . The Presidency of ORG shall enforce that part of the judgment and inform ORG accordingly . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW provide :

“ It shall be an offence punishable by death to commit any act aimed at subjecting the ORG or part of the ORG to domination by a foreign ORG , diminishing the ORG 's independence , breaking its unity or removing part of the national territory from the ORG 's control . ”

“ Any person who , with the intention of committing the offences defined in LAW ... , forms an armed gang or organisation or takes leadership ... or command of such a gang or organisation or assumes some special responsibility within it shall be sentenced to not less than DATE imprisonment .

The other members of the gang or organisation shall be sentenced to not CARDINAL and not DATE imprisonment . ”

“ Any person who , knowing that such an armed gang or organisation is illegal , assists it , harbours its members , provides it with food , weapons and ammunition or clothes or facilitates its operations in any manner whatsoever shall be sentenced to not CARDINAL and not DATE imprisonment ... ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . ORG ) , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , which came into force on CARDINAL DATE , provides :

“ Written and spoken propaganda , meetings , assemblies and demonstrations aimed at undermining the territorial integrity of GPE or the indivisible unity of the nation are prohibited . Any person who engages in such an activity shall be sentenced to not CARDINAL and not DATE imprisonment and a fine of from CARDINAL MONEY . The penalty imposed on a reoffender may not be commuted to a fine . ”


The applicants , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . Their occupations are respectively as follows : a police officer , a farmer , a police officer , a tailor , a teacher and a pensioner . ORG are married to each other , as are GPE and GPE The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , Acting Government Agent , and subsequently by PERSON J. Wołąsiewicz , Agent .

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

On DATE ORG , GPE and PERSON informed ORG ( ORG ) that they had decided to form an ordinary association ( stowarzyszenie zwykłe ) called ORG ( ORG ) . They submitted a copy of the memorandum of association , which listed the following objectives :

“ CARDINAL . Allowing association of former and present functionaries of ORG and members of their families who are victims of different forms of repression , persecution , harassment and discrimination .

Identification of a phenomenon of persecution , repression , harassment and discrimination in ORG .

Taking action aimed at improving the conditions of service and social conditions of the functionaries of ORG .

Responding to all apparent instances of lawbreaking , abusing authority , harassing , repressing , persecuting and discriminating .

Taking action aimed at redressing damage caused to victims .

Taking action aimed at obtaining the prosecution of persons responsible for persecution , repression , harassment and discrimination .

Co - operating with the public authorities , organs of state administration , national and patriotic organisations , NORP unions and associations .

Spreading national and patriotic values .

Expressing opinions on public matters . ”

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) applied to ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) for a decision prohibiting the formation of the association . He submitted that its name was misleading as it suggested that persecution was taking place in ORG . GPE was governed by the rule of law and since DATE numerous regulations had been introduced to protect the rights of police officers . Finally , the Governor agreed with the opinion of ORG Commissioner ( ORG ) that the association ’s name defamed ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed the application and prohibited the formation of the association . It considered that the applicants had not complied with LAW , which required them to agree with the Minister of ORG the association ’s objectives concerning the protection of public order .

The applicants appealed to ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) but on DATE it dismissed their appeal . The appellate court agreed with ORG conclusion that the applicants had breached section CARDINAL of LAW since they had not agreed with the Minister of ORG the association ’s objectives concerning the protection of public order . In addition , the association ’s name suggested the existence of persecution in ORG and therefore defamed a public institution .

On DATE ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE informed ORG that they had decided to form an ordinary association called ORG ( ORG i Nauczycieli ) .

On DATE the ORG Governor applied to ORG for a decision prohibiting the formation of the association .

On DATE the applicants requested that the proceedings be conducted by a judge who had in the past been persecuted by the authorities .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . The applicants failed to attend it despite the fact that they had been served with summonses . The court asked the applicants to clarify whether their request of DATE had been filed in order to challenge the presiding judge for bias .

On DATE the applicants repeated their request of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the requests lodged on CARDINAL and DATE .

The court scheduled a hearing for DATE . The applicants submitted that as a result of “ NORP and NORP reforms ” they could not afford to attend the hearing .

On DATE the applicants asked ORG “ to serve them with a reasoned decision taken by the court on DATE ” .

On DATE ORG gave a decision prohibiting the formation of the association .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ request of DATE . It pointed out that they had requested a copy of a non - existent decision , as the court had prohibited the formation of the association by a decision taken on DATE . Moreover , the applicants had failed to lodge a request for a reasoned decision within DATE after that date , i.e. within the time allowed by ORG .

On DATE the applicants received a copy of ORG decision of DATE prohibiting the formation of the association .

On DATE the applicants challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE and on CARDINAL DATE they appealed against the decision of DATE . However , their application of DATE was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE informed ORG that they had decided to form an ordinary association called ORG and NORP ( ORG przez PERSON i PERSON ) . They submitted a copy of the memorandum of association , which listed the following objectives :

“ CARDINAL . Allowing association of NORP victims of ORG and NORP .

Identification of a phenomenon of persecution , repression , harassment and discrimination in GPE .

Identification of a phenomenon of violation of human and civic rights in GPE .

Identification of a phenomenon of the holocaust of the NORP nation and the scope thereof .

Taking action aimed at equality between ethnic NORP and citizens of NORP origin by striving to abolish the privileges of ethnic NORP and by striving to end the persecution of ethnic NORP .

Taking action aimed at prosecuting and making financially liable tormentors and criminals responsible for the holocaust of the NORP nation .

Taking action aimed at prosecuting and making financially liable tormentors and criminals ( including tormentors and criminals sitting behind official desks and tormentors and criminals wearing the gown of a judge or prosecutor ) responsible for persecution , repression , harassment and discrimination .

Taking action aimed at prosecuting and making financially liable tormentors and criminals responsible for violating human and civic rights .

Revealing and fighting threats directed against the most important interests of the NORP nation .

Taking action aimed at improving the living conditions of NORP victims of ORG and NORP .

Taking actions aimed at determined opposition to the psychological and physical murder of the NORP nation .

Claiming veteran benefits for NORP victims of ORG and NORP .

Co - operating with institutions , national and patriotic organisations , NORP , unions and associations conducting real ( not feigned ) activities for the good of the NORP nation .

On DATE ORG allowed the application and prohibited the formation of the association . The court considered that the memorandum of association did not comply with the law . The applicants intended to form an ordinary association which did not have legal personality . Only point CARDINAL of the memorandum setting out the association ’s objectives could be approved . The remaining objectives were either unlawful or unrealistic and could not be pursued by an ordinary association . In particular , points CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL referred to objectives already realised by other institutions . Point CARDINAL introduced a notion of inequality between citizens which did not exist . Moreover , point CARDINAL amounted to defamation of judges and prosecutors .

The applicants appealed to ORG but on DATE it dismissed their appeal .

LAW , which was adopted by ORG on DATE and entered into force on DATE , states :

“ GPE shall ensure freedom for the creation and functioning of trade unions , socio - occupational farmers’ organisations , societies , ORG movements , other voluntary associations and foundations . ”

Article CARDINAL reads :

“ Political parties and other organisations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods or the models of nazism , fascism or communism , or whose programmes or activities foster racial or national hatred , recourse to violence for the purposes of obtaining power or to influence ORG policy , or which provide for their structure or membership to be secret , shall be forbidden . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , reads :

“ CARDINAL . NORP citizens shall exercise the right of association in accordance with the LAW ... and the legal order as specified by statute .

The [ exercise of the ] right of association may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary for ensuring the interests of national security or public order and for the protection of health and morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others .

Associations shall have the right to express their opinion on public matters . ”

Section CARDINAL , in so far as relevant , provides :

“ CARDINAL . An association is a voluntary , self - governing , durable union pursuing non - profit - making aims .

An association shall freely determine its objectives , its programmes of activity and organisational structures , and shall adopt internal resolutions concerning its activity . ”

Section CARDINAL provides :

“ Persons intending to form an association whose activity will be directly related to defence or ORG security or the protection of public order shall agree the scope of such activity with the Minister of Defence or the Minister of ORG , respectively ( ... ) . ”

LAW concerns ordinary associations . It provides that they do not have legal personality and are exempt from registration . Persons intending to form an ordinary association must adopt a memorandum of association and submit it to a supervisory authority , which can request a court to prohibit the formation of the association . The court can prohibit the formation of the association if its memorandum is not compatible with the law or if its founders do not fulfil the legal requirements .

Article CARDINAL provides :

“ § CARDINAL An appeal shall be lodged with the court which gave the impugned judgment within DATE after the date on which a party was served with the reasoned judgment .

§ CARDINAL If a party has not requested the reasoned judgment within DATE after the delivery of its operative part , the time allowed for lodging an appeal shall run from the date on which the time allowed for requesting the reasoned judgment expired . ”