The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . Because of his disability , he is represented before the ORG by his brother , PERSON . The Government are represented by PERSON , Agent , ORG and Law Enforcement .

The Szigetvár Public Water System Corporation ( Szigetvári Víziközmű Társulat ) was founded on DATE . The applicant , co - owner of real estate in PERSON , was obliged to become a member , pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Act on Water Management ( “ the LAW ” ) . According to paragraph CARDINAL of the same section , the applicant had to pay a compulsory membership fee , a so - called “ beneficiary ’s contribution ” ( érdekeltségi hozzájárulás ) , to the ORG . The amount of the fee ( in the applicant ’s case , MONEY ) was determined in relation to the size of his real estate .

The decisions concerning the fees payable by each member were dispatched in DATE . On DATE and DATE , a reminder was sent to the applicant about the sum he owed the Corporation . Disputing the latter , the applicant wrote a complaining letter to the ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the constitutionality of the Act before ORG . On DATE that court dismissed the applicant ’s motion , together with several other similar cases . It held that the unilateral action of the legislator , obliging inhabitants of a certain area to be members of a public water system corporation and regulating their rights and obligations concerning the use of water , was justified by the public interest in preserving the quality of water and in protecting the environment . In so far as the applicant ’s complaint concerned the conditions of compulsory membership of a specific corporation , ORG found that the ordinary courts had jurisdiction in such matters . In this connection it also noted that the corporation was not an administrative body and that the corporation and its members had a relationship under civil , rather than administrative , law . It was observed that any member disputing the fee payable had the right to seek judicial review within DATE counted from the date of notification of the imposition of the fee ( sections QUANTITY of the Act ) .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG against the ORG . He claimed that his membership of the corporation was not only involuntary but also unlawful , in that the water supply for his real estate was not provided by the corporation . In the absence of any service performed by the corporation , no liabilities should have arisen on his part .

On DATE the applicant completed his action . In the first paragraph on page CARDINAL of his submission he wrote :

“ ... The purposeless dispute has been going on between the parties since DATE , for DATE . The water management company obliges PERSON to make beneficiary ’s contributions at the price of infringing his rights ! ”

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s action without an examination of its merits . It held that it had been submitted outside the DATE statutory time - limit following the delivery of the impugned decision , laid down in section QUANTITY on Water Management . It reasoned that :

“ the applicant himself stated in his submissions clarifying his action ( in the first paragraph on page CARDINAL ) that a decision obliging him to pay a contribution was delivered to him in DATE ” .

In his appeal the applicant requested the annulment of the first instance order and contested ORG statements . He argued that ORG had , by stating that he had admitted that a decision had been served on him in DATE , misquoted the first paragraph of page CARDINAL of his submissions . In fact , no formal decision had been given , or served on him , in DATE or on any other subsequent date . The applicant argued that , no decision having ever been given , he could not possibly have missed any time - limit .

On DATE the Baranya County Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It found that :

“ the applicant had not attached the disputed decision to his submissions , but he had received it ; this fact was rightly referred to by ORG , which the second - instance court quotes , for the sake of emphasis : « The water management company obliges PERSON to make beneficiary ’s contributions ORG . ”


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of PERSON , GPE region , GPE .

In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against her former employer , ORG ( Шахта « PERSON « PERSON ) , for salary arrears and compensation for moral damage . On DATE the court awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( “ UAH ” ) ( PERSON міського суду ORG області ) .

NORP In DATE ORG ( ORG відділ Державної виконавчої служби PERSON луцького міського управління юстиції ) initiated the enforcement proceedings .

NORP By letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant that the debtor 's accounts had been seized but that it was impossible to deal in the debtor 's property because the debtor was a ORG enterprise .

On DATE ORG initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor enterprise .

The applicant received ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ; according to the applicant , the rest of the debt remains unpaid .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska

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

, may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant applied for asylum and a residence permit in GPE , claiming that he had arrived in GPE DATE . In written submissions and during interviews with ORG ( Migrationsverket ) , where the applicant ’s legal counsel was present , he stated that he was NORP , born in GPE , but that his family had been moved to GPE ( the capital of the NORP Regional Government area , hearafter “ the LOC area ” ) in DATE and had lived there until DATE when , after the fall of PERSON , they had returned to the family ’s house in GPE . He claimed that his father had then worked for ORG as an interpreter and that , in DATE , they had heard from neighbours that terrorists were looking for his father because he had cooperated with the NORP . The applicant further alleged that he and his uncle had owned a catering business which delivered food to the NORP troops in the area of GPE ( NORP ) . Thus , when his father was threatened by the terrorists , the applicant had also felt insecure and under threat due to his own work . He therefore terminated the contract with the NORP and he and his family , including his uncle , moved to the city of their ancestors , LOC ( a town outside GPE ) . The applicant acknowledged that he had never been personally threatened but , during his time in GPE , the family was informed that the terrorists were still looking for them in GPE . Moreover , the applicant claimed that he could not return to GPE since he had no relatives left there and the terrorists could find him there as well . To prove his identity , the applicant submitted a certificate of citizenship issued in GPE in DATE and an identity card issued in GPE in DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the application . It first noted that the applicant had lived most of his life in GPE and that he was NORP and that , therefore , it would try his asylum claim on the basis that he came from the KRG area of GPE . ORG then observed that he had not shown that he could not benefit from the protection and help of the authorities in the KRG area against the alleged terrorist threat . In its view , nothing in the case indicated that the applicant would not benefit from the authorities’ protection to the same extent as other citizens of the area . As the ORG found that there were no other grounds on which to grant the applicant leave to remain in GPE , it rejected his application . ORG added , for information , that it had a contract with a NORP organisation with the goal of facilitating reintegration for returnees to the KRG area through labour market measures , such as financial support to create a business .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining his claims and adding that , in DATE , his family ’s house in ORG had been the target of a grenade attack . His family had then moved to GPE . Thus , it was clear to him that the authorities could not protect him . Moreover , he wanted his application to be tried on the basis that he came from GPE and not the KRG area since he had no personal connection to that area .

On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , rejected the appeal . It first noted that since ORG had tried the applicant ’s claim in relation to the LOC , the court would do so as well . Moreover , since he had lived there most of his life and done all his schooling there , including after reaching maturity , the court found that he had a close connection to GPE . In respect to this , it also noted that his certificate of citizenship had been issued in GPE in DATE for which reason he should have no practical problems returning there . As concerned the threat from terrorists , the court noted that these had primarily been directed against the applicant ’s father and that they had emanated from individual persons , not the authorities . Furthermore , the threats had occurred in GPE . As the applicant had not been able to specify any concrete threat against him personally , in particular if he were to return to GPE , the court concluded that he had not shown that he would face a real and personal risk of persecution or ill - treatment in the LOC area . As there was no other ground on which to grant the applicant leave to remain in GPE , the court upheld ORG decision in full .

On DATE ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal . The deportation order thereby became enforceable .

In DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG for reconsideration of his case due to new circumstances . He maintained his previous claims but added that he had contacted ORG in GPE to ask some former colleagues about the threats against him . In reply , he had received a letter , via e - mail on DATE , from PERSON , Company Commander in GPE which he insisted proved that he was sought by terrorists and that they wanted to kill him . The e - mail included a “ Memorandum for NORP Migration Board ” , dated DATE , and signed by PERSON , Company Commander in GPE . In this , the commander stated that , during his first deployment to GPE in DATE , he had been stationed in GPE where the applicant ’s father had been his interpreter . In this connection , he had also come to know the applicant who had “ played a key role in the establishment of a new ORG in GPE through the coordination and delivery of a food service contract in support of this Company . ” ORG had provided security for over CARDINAL NORP citizens but had put the applicant at risk from ORG . Against this background , the commander asked ORG to “ give special consideration to [ the applicant ] when deciding his immigration status ” since “ [ f]orcing him to return to GPE at this time poses great risks to his personal safety . ”

On DATE ORG decided not to reconsider the case since no new circumstances had been presented and it had already considered the applicant ’s fear of being targeted by terrorists .

The applicant appealed to ORG , insisting that the letter clearly showed that he was a target for terrorists and that he was at the top of their “ death list ” . On DATE the court upheld the ORG ’s decision in full . It is unclear whether this judgment was appealed against to ORG .

The basic provisions mainly applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in the DATE LAW ( Utlänningslagen , DATE hereafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) which replaced , on DATE , the old LAW ( Utlänningslagen , DATE ) . Both the old Aliens Act and the DATE Act define the conditions under which an alien can be deported or expelled from the country , as well as the procedures relating to the enforcement of such decisions .

LAW , of the DATE Act stipulates that an alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE . According to LAW , LAW , of LAW , the term “ refugee ” refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted on grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By “ an alien otherwise in need of protection ” is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW , of the DATE Act ) .

As regards the enforcement of a deportation or expulsion order , account has to be taken of the risk of capital punishment or torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien must not be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW , of the DATE Act ) . In addition , an alien must not , in principle , be sent to a country where he or she risks persecution ( LAW , LAW , of the DATE Act ) .

Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has gained legal force . This applies , under LAW , LAW , of LAW , where new circumstances have emerged that mean there are reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that an enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced . If a residence permit can not be granted under this provision , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such a re - examination shall be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW , and these circumstances could not have been invoked previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not doing so . Should the applicable conditions not have been met , ORG shall decide not to grant a re - examination ( LAW , LAW , of LAW ) .

Under LAW , matters concerning the right of aliens to enter and remain in GPE are dealt with by CARDINAL instances ; ORG , ORG and ORG ( LAW , LAW , and LAW , LAW , of LAW ) . Hence , upon entry into force on DATE of the DATE Act , ORG ceased to exist .

The ORG ’s “ Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of NORP Asylum - Seekers ” , dated DATE states , inter alia , that since DATE the CARDINAL NORP Governorates of Dahuk , GPE and GPE have largely escaped the violence and collapse of law and order prevalent in many parts of LOC and remain relatively quiet and stable although the security situation remains tenuous and unpredictable for a number of reasons . Therefore , the ORG maintains its position thus far that claims from asylum - seekers from these CARDINAL LOC should be individually assessed based on the DATE LAW . The ORG further observes that persons originating from this area can enter the Governorate of GPE without any restrictions . Moreover , it notes that , generally , the NORP authorities will be able and willing to provide protection although certain persons , particularly those fleeing “ honour killings ” or tribal conflict ( blood feud ) , may still be reached by their persecutors if relocated within GPE .

As concerns the situation of NORP affiliated with ORG ( MNF - I ) in all of GPE , the ORG maintains its previous position that civilians employed or otherwise affiliated with ORG are at risk of being targeted by non - state actors . In areas where security has improved over DATE ) , the risks to persons affiliated with the ORG - I have diminished to some extent , but are still considerable given the continued influence of extremist groups . The risk is particularly high for persons working as interpreters for the ORG - I given their exposure and possible involvement in military activities , for example arrests , raids or interrogation of insurgent or militia members .

The position of the LAW in the above LAW has been endorsed as still being valid in their “ Note of FAC of the DATE ORG of ORG ” , dated DATE . This note further observes that GPE remains relatively stable , though assaults on journalists and political opponents have been reported .

Moreover , ORG “ Report DATE on GPE ” states , inter alia , that the GPE region remains largely unaffected by the political violence seen in other parts of GPE and that human rights conditions continues generally to improve , although many abuses are reported .

This view is shared by the “ DATE Report on Human Rights in GPE ” by ORG / ORG , dated DATE , which notes that the situation is generally improving in the GPE region . In their view , the security situation is stable , with very few security incidents or casualties reported ( CARDINAL reported civilian deaths in the ORG area during DATE ) . They further observe that the improved security situation , matched with the increasing openness of ORG authorities , means greater participation of civil society and NGOs in seeking solutions to the remaining human rights concerns in the region . In this respect , ORG has shown itself to be open to dialogue and to work in a largely cooperative manner with ORG in relation to human rights issues throughout the region .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant obtained a ORG special - purpose commodity bond ( облигация государственного целевого беспроцентного займа ) . By its terms the ORG undertook to give her a NORP - made ORG passenger car .

It appears that in DATE the applicant requested the ORG to comply with its obligation , but it could not be fulfilled for want of cars .

After the change in legislation in DATE and DATE , the applicant became entitled to compensation in the amount equal to the car value , as described in the bond and determined in co - ordination with car manufacturers at the moment of redemption .

It appears that in DATE the applicant received partial compensation .

In DATE she sued the Government for the full market value of the car .

By judgment of DATE , ORG of GPE awarded her MONEY ( RUB ) against ORG . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment .

On DATE the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings . On DATE the bailiff returned the writ of execution to the applicant . On DATE , the applicant re - submitted it to ORG . Upon the ORG 's instructions , on DATE the applicant forwarded her writ to ORG in GPE .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG returned the writ to the applicant , indicating that it should be submitted to ORG . The applicant sent the writ to ORG on DATE

On DATE the Ministry informed the applicant that it would not enforce the judgment because supervisory - review proceedings had been pending .

The applicant received the monies due to her on DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1 (access to court);Not necessary to examine issue of length;Damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was severely injured in a traffic accident in GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a civil action before LOC of GPE against the car driver and the car owner , the GPE branch of ORG , seeking compensation for damage . She claimed MONEY ( ORG ) as compensation for the loss of salary , for medical and travel expenses incurred as a result of the traffic accident and CARDINAL as compensation for non - pecuniary damage . A copy of the statement of claim produced to the ORG bears a stamp of ORG registry showing the registration date as CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG , by an interim decision , ordered a medical examination of the applicant by a panel of experts . It put questions about the current state of the applicant ’s health , her previous ailments and their possible causes and an eventual need for medical assistance and care .

The interim decision of CARDINAL DATE was submitted to the GPE bureau for forensic medical examinations ( GPE судебно-медицинской экспертизы при Комитете здравоохранения города GPE , hereinafter the “ GPE ” ) .

On DATE the ORG asked ORG for the applicant ’s medical documents .

According to the Government , upon receipt of the ORG ’s request , ORG asked the applicant ’s lawyer Mr PERSON , a member of ORG , to produce additional medical information . No response followed . On an unspecified date ORG repeated its request . After Mr GPE had failed to respond for the second time , ORG issued an interim decision on discontinuation of the proceedings . The court returned the applicant ’s statement of claims with attached documents to Mr GPE .

The applicant indicated that neither she nor her lawyer had received ORG request for additional information and that they had not been notified of ORG interim decision on discontinuation of the proceedings .

In DATE the applicant complained to the president of LOC about an excessive length of the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that , according to the registration log for DATE , the applicant ’s claim against the bank had never been registered by ORG .

NORP In DATE Mr GPE inquired of the GPE whether the expert examination ordered by the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been carried out .

NORP By letter of DATE , the ORG responded to Mr GPE that , having received no response from ORG for additional medical information , it had not carried out any examination .

On DATE the President of ORG reported to the applicant that , according to the registration logs of LOC for DATE , ORG did not have a civil case to which the applicant and the GPE branch of ORG were the parties .

The RSFSR Code on Civil Procedure of CARDINAL DATE ( in force at the material time ) provided that civil cases were to be prepared for a hearing DATE after the action had been lodged with the court . Civil cases were to be examined DATE after the preparation for the hearing had been completed ( LAW )

Summonses were to be served on the parties and their representatives in such way so that they would have enough time to appear timely at the hearing and prepare their case . If necessary , the parties could be summoned by a phone call or a telegram ( Article CARDINAL ) .

A court could adjourn examination of a case when an expert examination had been ordered ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL set out an exhaustive list of grounds for issuing an interim decision on discontinuation of the proceedings ( определение об оставлении заявления без рассмотрения ) , that is if parties failed to make use of a preliminary non - judicial avenue of solving a dispute ; if an action was lodged by an incapacitated person or by a person lacking the authority to act ; if the parties , without valid reasons , failed to attend CARDINAL hearings ; and if the same dispute between the same parties was pending before a court .

A copy of an interim decision on discontinuation of the proceedings was to be sent to the absent party DATE upon its delivery ( LAW .

Files in civil cases concerning claims for compensation for health damage were to be kept by first - instance courts for DATE ( Item CARDINAL ( A ) ( CARDINAL ) of the List of documents of ORG , justice departments and authorities , and courts with indication of their period of keeping , approved by ORG on DATE ) .

Original decisions on discontinuation of civil proceedings must be kept permanently ( Paragraph CARDINAL of the Instruction on the procedure for keeping , selecting and archiving of court documents , approved by Order no . CARDINAL of the GPE Minister of Justice on DATE ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13+6-1;Damage - claim dismissed

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE restricted the applicant ’s legal capacity in that she was not allowed to act on her own before public authorities . The court relied on the opinion of several experts concluding that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder as a result of paranoid development of her personality . The applicant suffered from the delusion that she was being persecuted and on that ground she had made a considerable number of complaints and other submissions . The applicant ’s mother was appointed guardian for the purpose of the proceedings concerning the limitation of the applicant ’s legal capacity .

On DATE ORG in PERSON upheld the first - instance judgment , which became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG in GPE brought proceedings on its own initiative with a view to appointing a guardian for the applicant , whose legal capacity had been restricted by the above decisions . On DATE the file was transmitted to ORG in PERSON for decision on an objection to the judges of ORG .

On DATE ORG excluded the judges of ORG in GPE and transferred the case to ORG in Prešov . The file was returned to ORG in GPE on DATE . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the file was sent to ORG in Prešov where the case was registered under number P CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG asked the applicant ’s husband to inform it about persons who could act as the applicant ’s guardian . The mail was returned to the court with the explanation that the addressee was in hospital . On DATE ORG in GPE submitted information at ORG request of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG asked the applicant ’s mother whether she was willing to act as her daughter ’s guardian . The mother replied in the negative .

On DATE the court appointed a judicial secretary to act as the applicant ’s guardian in the proceedings in issue .

On DATE the applicant ’s brother refused to act as guardian .

On DATE ORG in GPE informed ORG that its employees were unable to identify a person willing to act as the applicant ’s guardian . On CARDINAL and DATE the applicant ’s sisters refused to assume that duty .

At a hearing held on DATE ORG proposed that its employee PERSON . be appointed as the applicant ’s guardian . That person stated that the applicant had no confidence in her . The case was adjourned and the court asked the municipality to indicate an employee of ORG who would act as the applicant ’s guardian . On DATE ORG again proposed that PERSON . should be charged with that responsibility . In a letter of DATE the applicant replied that she disagreed .

On DATE PERSON . informed the court that she had been unable to find any person willing to assume the duty in question . ORG decided that PERSON , a person who had represented the town of GPE at the previous hearing , should act as the guardian . Both PERSON and the applicant appealed in DATE . On DATE PERSON appeal was sent to ORG .

On DATE ORG in PERSON quashed ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE the first - instance court made CARDINAL inquiries with a view to finding a suitable person . Those inquiries were unsuccessful .

On DATE ORG decided that ORG in GPE should act as the applicant ’s guardian . The decision was served on the applicant , after several unsuccessful attempts , on DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed .

The file was sent to ORG in PERSON on DATE . On DATE it was transmitted to ORG in Prešov , due to a change in the jurisdiction of the courts of appeal .

On DATE ORG in Prešov quashed the first - instance decision on the ground that ORG lacked legal capacity and therefore could not act as the applicant ’s guardian .

On DATE ORG appointed ORG as the applicant ’s guardian in respect of all actions involving the applicant ’s relations with public authorities .

On DATE the applicant appealed . She also challenged the ORG judges .

DATE and DATE the file was submitted to ORG in PERSON for consultation .

On DATE the file was submitted to ORG in Prešov for a decision on the applicant ’s appeal . ORG returned the file to the first - instance court with the instruction that ORG judge should first comment on the request for her exclusion and that a mistake in the decision of CARDINAL DATE should be rectified .

ORG delivered a rectified decision on DATE . The court had difficulties in serving the rectified decision on the applicant , who received it on DATE .

On DATE ORG in Prešov upheld the decision on the appointment of a guardian and dismissed the applicant ’s request for the withdrawal of the first - instance court judge . The decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the GPE proposed to LOC that legal capacity should be restored to the applicant .

On DATE ORG appointed an expert with a view to assessing the applicant ’s health . On DATE it asked a local authority to submit a report on the applicant .

On DATE the applicant challenged the expert , alleging that drugs had been forcibly administered to her in the hospital department where the expert worked . On DATE ORG appointed a different expert , who was requested to submit an opinion within DATE .

On DATE the expert appointed by the court proposed that an expert in psychology should assist him . He also asked for an extension of the time - limit within which the opinion was to be submitted .

After they had examined the applicant as an outpatient on CARDINAL and DATE the experts submitted an opinion to ORG on DATE . It comprised CARDINAL pages . According to the opinion , the applicant had been suffering from a chronic disorder resulting in a querulous type of paranoia for DATE . She had no critical approach to the disorder and she remained persuaded that her actions were correct . The applicant understood judicial proceedings only within the frame of her mental disorder , in that she remained convinced that courts and other authorities were doing harm to her . The illness was of a lasting character and had developed in a slow and latent manner . It had advanced as compared with DATE , when the applicant ’s legal capacity had first been restricted . The experts did not recommend that the applicant be heard in person by a court or that judgments should be served on her , as she was unable to understand the scope of the proceedings and the judicial decisions correctly .

On DATE the ORG heard the expert appointed and the representative of the authority acting as the applicant ’s guardian . The latter stated that the proposal to restore full legal capacity to the applicant had been submitted as she had appeared well balanced at that time . However , officials of ORG had encountered serious difficulties with the applicant during the subsequent period . The representative confirmed that the applicant had reacted in an inappropriate manner whenever authorities had failed to act in accordance with her wishes .

ORG also heard a guardian whom it had appointed to represent the applicant in the proceedings . The guardian did not propose restoring full legal capacity to the applicant as her health had not improved .

Relying on the expert opinion ORG decided not to hear the applicant . Reference was made to LAW .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG referred in detail to the applicant ’s situation and behaviour . With reference to the experts’ conclusion it held that numerous abusive complaints , submissions and appeals which the applicant had made proved that her personality disorder persisted , resulting in her querulous behaviour . The court therefore decided not to restore full legal capacity to the applicant .

As the applicant ’s mental disorder was chronic and since it could not be expected that her health would improve , the court decided that the applicant was not to be allowed to make a fresh request for full legal capacity to be restored to her for DATE from the date of the judgment . Reference was made to LAW .

Following the explicit recommendation of the experts , ORG decided not to serve the judgment on the applicant . It became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law on the applicant ’s behalf , in which he contested the decision that the applicant was not entitled to make a fresh claim concerning her legal capacity for DATE . ORG objected that ORG had decided exclusively at the request of the applicant ’s guardian and that it had failed to decide on the applicant ’s requests seeking restoration of full legal capacity , which were included in the file .

ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law on DATE . It held that the first - instance court had considered all relevant facts , including the applicant ’s submissions .

NORP The applicant married PERSON on DATE . CARDINAL children were born to the couple , in DATE and DATE respectively . The spouses were divorced at the applicant ’s petition on DATE .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON remarried .

On DATE the applicant applied for a divorce before ORG .

On DATE the judge instructed ORG to wait for the outcome of the proceedings concerning the applicant ’s legal capacity .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s husband informed the court that he had agreed to a divorce .

On DATE the file was submitted to ORG in PERSON as the judges of ORG in GPE considered themselves biased . On DATE ORG decided that the case was to be dealt with by ORG in Prešov . The file was transmitted to the latter court on DATE .

On DATE the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the above proceedings no . P CARDINAL concerning the appointment of a guardian . A guardian was appointed to represent the applicant in the divorce proceedings . The decision to stay the proceedings was served on that guardian on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision to stay the divorce proceedings . The file was transmitted to ORG of PERSON on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on the ground that the applicant lacked the standing to file it , as her legal capacity had been restricted on DATE .

The judge made inquiries as regards the progress of proceedings no . P CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG asked ORG to inform it , as the applicant ’s guardian , whether it was seeking determination of the applicant ’s petition for divorce . The court reiterated that request on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG replied in the affirmative . On DATE ORG submitted further documents and information at the court ’s request of DATE .

On DATE ORG proposed that the divorce proceedings should be stayed pending the determination of its proposal that full legal capacity be restored to the applicant , which had been made in DATE . On DATE ORG submitted further copies of the petition for divorce , in compliance with ORG request .

On DATE ORG asked the municipality to pay the court fee .

On DATE the court sent the applicant ’s claim to her husband . The latter submitted his comments on DATE .

On DATE ORG asked for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee .

On DATE the case was assigned to a different judge .

On DATE the ORG exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fee .

A hearing was held on DATE , at which the ORG granted the applicant and her husband a divorce . The judgment was sent to the parties on DATE and it became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant claimed before ORG that property she and her husband jointly owned as spouses should be divided . The judge decided to wait for the outcome of the proceedings on the applicant ’s legal capacity , which were then pending before the court of appeal .

As ORG judges considered themselves biased , due to the applicant ’s past statements about them , the file was submitted to ORG in PERSON . On DATE ORG excluded the judges of ORG in GPE and transferred the case to ORG in Prešov . The file was transmitted to that court on DATE .

On DATE the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of proceedings no . P CARDINAL , relating to the appointment of a guardian for the applicant . On DATE a guardian was appointed to represent the applicant in the proceedings for division of matrimonial property .

On DATE the applicant appealed . The case was submitted to ORG in PERSON on DATE . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG asked ORG in GPE and ORG for files concerning the applicant ’s legal capacity . ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision to stay the proceedings on DATE . The file was returned to ORG in Prešov on DATE .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to inform it , as the applicant ’s guardian , whether it maintained the action . ORG reiterated that request on DATE . It warned the municipality that a fine would be imposed on it in the absence of a reply .

On DATE ORG withdrew the applicant ’s action on the ground that the applicant and her husband had divorced in the meantime . The applicant ’s claim had concerned division of property which the applicant and her husband had jointly owned during their marriage . The reason for the applicant ’s action no longer existed .

ORG discontinued the proceedings on DATE . The decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant claimed before ORG that her husband should be obliged to contribute to her maintenance .

On DATE the judge decided to wait for the outcome of the proceedings relating to the applicant ’s legal capacity , which were then pending before the court of appeal .

On DATE ORG in LOC asked the applicant ’s husband for comments on the action . It also asked the applicant to specify her claim .

DATE . On DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE ORG in LOC asked for information concerning the proceedings relating to the restriction of the applicant ’s legal capacity and for the relevant file .

On DATE ORG in Prešov stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of proceedings no . P CARDINAL/CARDINAL relating to the appointment of a guardian . It also appointed a guardian to represent the applicant in the proceedings concerning her claim for maintenance .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings . On DATE the court of appeal discontinued the proceedings on the appeal as the applicant lacked standing to lodge it . The file was returned to the first - instance court on DATE .

ORG in LOC asked for the file in proceedings no . P CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE . It did not obtain that file , as the relevant case had been dealt with by different courts .

On DATE the case concerning the applicant ’s claim for maintenance was allocated to a different judge of the ORG . On DATE the judge was informed that file no . P CARDINAL/CARDINAL could still not be submitted , as that case had been dealt with .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG asked the applicant ’s guardian , ORG , for comments on the applicant ’s claim . In the absence of any reply ORG reiterated the request on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG replied that it was maintaining the applicant ’s claim for maintenance . On DATE the municipality submitted further information at the request of ORG .

On DATE ORG asked CARDINAL different authorities for information about the situation of the applicant and her husband . It received replies during DATE .

On DATE the case was allocated to a different judge .

DATE . On DATE ORG asked ORG for information about the applicant ’s income in DATE .

A hearing was held on DATE . The applicant ’s husband did not appear . On DATE the defendant informed the court that he had been in hospital since DATE and that he would be undergoing surgery . The hearing scheduled for DATE was therefore cancelled .

On DATE the court asked the defendant ’s employer for information about the income of the applicant ’s husband . On DATE it made an inquiry as regards the applicant ’s legal capacity .

ORG heard a representative of ORG on DATE . The case was adjourned as the defendant was absent .

On DATE the ORG heard the parties . It dismissed the action with reference to the situation of the applicant and that of her husband . It noted in particular that the defendant had covered all household expenses and the maintenance of their CARDINAL children at the material time . The judgment was served on the parties on DATE and DATE respectively .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought an action with ORG in GPE . She challenged her employer ’s conclusion that she had been absent from work without authorisation for DATE and claimed compensation for lost income totalling CARDINAL NORP korunas .

On DATE ORG in GPE found that the employer had proceeded erroneously . It granted the claim for compensation in part . Both the applicant and the defendant appealed . On DATE ORG in GPE upheld the first - instance judgment . On DATE ORG quashed the lower ORG decision to dismiss a part of the applicant ’s claim and returned the case to ORG . The outstanding part of the proceedings concerned a claim for payment of the equivalent of CARDINAL ( ORG ) .

ORG did not proceed with the case as it was established that , in the meantime , proceedings concerning the applicant ’s legal capacity had been brought .

On DATE the applicant requested that ORG judges should be excluded from all her cases .

In DATE and in DATE ORG requested the file concerning the applicant ’s legal capacity . The ORG replied on DATE that the file had been sent to ORG in Prešov .

On DATE the applicant ’s guardian informed ORG in GPE that the applicant was maintaining her request for exclusion of the judges .

In DATE and DATE ORG again requested that the file concerning the applicant ’s legal capacity should be submitted to it .

On DATE the case was assigned to a different judge .

ORG received the requested files concerning different cases of the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the ORG judges were invited to comment on the applicant ’s request for their exclusion . Later ORG in LOC excluded the judge of ORG who had dealt with the case . The case was transferred to a different chamber of ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG noted that the parties had concluded a friendly settlement under which the defendant undertook to pay the equivalent of ORG plus default interest to the applicant . The court discontinued the proceedings in respect of that part of the action . The applicant withdrew the remaining part of her claim ( payment of the equivalent of EUR CARDINAL ) as that sum had already been paid to her .

In DATE the applicant brought an action with ORG which concerned the right to use a flat ( ORG file no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . On DATE she informed the ORG that ORG had failed to proceed with the action .

On DATE the applicant and several other members of her family sued the applicant ’s husband on the ground that he had made vulgar statements in respect of the applicant and her relatives . The ORG decided on the action on DATE ( file no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

In DATE the applicant sued her husband , claiming compensation for non - pecuniary damage on the ground that the defendant had ill - treated her . On DATE the ORG dismissed the action .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant claimed before ORG that she should be granted custody of her children and that their father should be ordered to pay maintenance . On DATE the applicant claimed compensation for movable property before ORG . ORG did not proceed with those claims as the applicant had not made them through the intermediary of her guardian .

In DATE FAC approved of an examination of the applicant ’s health in a mental hospital without her consent . The relevant decision became final on DATE ( file no . Ncú CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant and several other persons claimed damages from a couple who had sold livestock to them . The applicant submitted the relevant documents to the ORG on DATE stating that the proceedings concerning that claim were still pending ( ORG file no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the cooperative which owned the flat in which the applicant and her husband lived claimed that the tenants should be ordered to move out as they had failed to pay the rent . On DATE ORG granted the claim ( file no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the cooperative sued the applicant and her husband for a sum of money . On DATE ORG in GPE discontinued the proceedings as the plaintiff had withdrawn the action ( file no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . On DATE the applicant appealed . No further information has been submitted .

NORP The applicant unsuccessfully made a number of criminal complaints against different persons including her husband and one of the judges dealing with her cases .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about a violation of her rights in the proceedings concerning her cases . On DATE the ORG appointed an advocate to represent the applicant . The advocate submitted a complaint in due form on DATE .

On DATE ORG declared admissible the complaint about a violation of the applicant ’s right to a hearing by an independent tribunal and without unjustified delays in the proceedings concerning a labour dispute which had been pending since DATE . It rejected the remaining complaints for the following reasons .

ORG rejected as having been lodged outside the statutory DATE time - limit complaints relating to ( i ) the claim for division of matrimonial property of DATE , ( ii ) the applicant ’s claim for maintenance of DATE and ( iii ) the proceedings concerning the placement of the applicant in a mental hospital for the purpose of examination of her health , in which the final decision had been given in DATE .

ORG noted that ORG in GPE had failed to proceed with the applicant ’s claims for compensation for movable property of DATE and for custody of her children and their maintenance , lodged on DATE . It found no violation of her constitutional rights in that context , as the applicant ’s legal capacity had been restricted and she had not been entitled to bring judicial proceedings herself . After examination of the relevant files , ORG held that the authority appointed to act as her guardian had not failed to comply with any of its duties . In particular , the applicant ’s guardian had acted with due care in the divorce proceedings in DATE in the context of which both the custody and maintenance of the children and the division of marital property had been determined .

On DATE the Constitutional Court gave a decision on the merits of the admissible part of the case . It found that ORG had violated the applicant ’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay . It noted that the proceedings had been pending for DATE and that during the period falling within its jurisdiction ( from DATE ) there had been delays imputable to ORG totalling DATE . ORG granted the applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) as just satisfaction . It ordered ORG to proceed with the case without delay and to reimburse the costs of the applicant ’s representation in the constitutional proceedings .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL entitles courts to restrict the legal capacity of individuals who , inter alia , are suffering from a lasting mental disorder and who are therefore capable of taking only certain legal actions . A restriction on a person ’s legal capacity or his or her deprivation thereof has to be cancelled or its scope modified when the underlying grounds change or fall away .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL entitles courts to exempt a party from the obligation to respect a time - limit which that party has failed to respect for a justifiable reason . A request to that effect has to be made within DATE from the date the obstacle preventing the party from taking the relevant legal action has fallen away .

Under LAW , as in force at the relevant time , a person who was deprived of legal capacity could claim that it should be restored to him or her . However , where a court dismissed such a request and where it could not be expected that the condition of the person concerned would improve , courts were entitled to prevent that person from making a similar request for an appropriate period , the length of which could not exceed DATE .

With effect from DATE Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL has been amended in that the period during which a person can be prevented from claiming restoration of his or her legal capacity was reduced to a maximum of DATE .

In a commentary on the above amendment the view was expressed that the original DATE period had been excessively long and capable of seriously affecting a person ’s human rights . In view of the progress of medical science , reduction of that period to a maximum of DATE was considered appropriate ( see PERSON súdny poriadok , PERSON práca , spol . s r.o . , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that a court can refrain from hearing a person whose legal capacity is to be restricted where it is not possible to hear such a person at all or where a hearing would impair that person ’s health .

Under LAW , courts can refrain from serving a decision concerning a person ’s legal capacity where its service can have a negative impact on that person because of his or her mental disorder or where the person concerned is not capable of understanding the meaning of the decision .


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

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

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

The applicant 's wife died on DATE . His claim for widows ' benefits was made on DATE and was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows ' benefits because he was not a woman . On DATE the applicant appealed and on CARDINAL DATE reconsideration took place . The previous decision was upheld . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV and Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


CASE OF PALOMO SÁNCHEZ AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants live in GPE .

They were employed as delivery men by the company P. , against which they brought several sets of proceedings in employment tribunals . The applicants sought to secure recognition by the employer of their special “ salaried worker ” status , as confirmed by judgments of CARDINAL May and DATE of ORG , in order to be covered by the corresponding social - security regime . Representatives of a committee of non - salaried delivery staff in the company P. had testified against them in those proceedings .

On DATE the applicants set up the trade union ORG ( ORG ) to defend their interests and those of the other delivery staff who were under pressure from the company ORG to renounce their claim to salaried status . The applicants joined the union ’s executive committee . On DATE the applicants informed the company P. of the setting - up of a branch of the trade union inside the company , of its composition , and of their appointment as members of the executive committee of that workplace branch . Mr PERSON was the trade - union representative , Mr PERSON the treasurer , Mr PERSON the press and communications officer and Mr PERSON the organisation officer . No changes concerning the appointment of the union members or their duties have taken place since the union was formed .

NORP The trade union ORG published a DATE newsletter . DATE [ sic ] issue reported on the judgment of DATE of ORG no . CARDINAL , which had partly upheld the applicants’ claims , ordering the company P. to pay them certain sums in respect of salaries owed to them .

On the cover of the newsletter , a cartoon with speech bubbles showed a caricature of the human resources manager , PERSON , sitting behind a desk under which a person on all fours could be seen from behind , together with , to CARDINAL side , GPE and PERSON , also employees of the company ORG and representatives of a committee of its non - salaried delivery workers , who were watching the scene while waiting to take their turn to satisfy the manager . Inside the newsletter were CARDINAL articles which vehemently denounced the fact that those CARDINAL individuals had testified in favour of the company P. in proceedings that the applicants had brought against their employer . The newsletter was distributed among the workers and displayed on the noticeboard of the trade union ORG which was located on the company ’s premises .

On DATE the company notified the applicants of their dismissal on grounds of serious misconduct , namely for impugning the reputations of PERSON , NORP and PERSON , under LAW and CARDINAL ( c ) of ORG , which provide for the termination of a contract of employment where an employee is guilty of serious and negligent failure to perform his or her contractual obligations .

The applicants challenged that decision before ORG no . CARDINAL , which , in a judgment of DATE , dismissed their claims and found that the dismissals were justified , in accordance with LAW and CARDINAL ( c ) of ORG . The tribunal took the view that the company ’s decision to dismiss the applicants had been based on a genuine and serious cause , namely the publication and display on a noticeboard inside the company of a cartoon with speech bubbles and CARDINAL articles which were offensive and impugned the dignity of the persons concerned . The first article , entitled “ Whose witnesses ? Theirs , of course ” , contained caricatures of A. and PERSON , showing them gagged by a handkerchief tied behind their heads , and the text underneath read as follows :

“ We knew who they were and how they behaved , but we did n’t know how far they were prepared to go in order to hold onto their seats and cushy jobs without doing anything .

As employees of P. we earn our living by selling goods in the street . A. and PERSON earn theirs by selling the workers in the courts . Not content with doing this simply by signing agreements that go against the collective interest , they ’ve now gone a step further – they rob and steal with total impunity , in broad daylight , with the confidence of men who feel totally untouchable . They play at being gods .

... but they , the chairman and secretary of the staff representatives , agreed , just like guard dogs , to roll over and frolic in return for a pat on the back by their master . ... ”

The tribunal noted that the text was a response to what had happened during proceedings brought by the applicants before ORG no . CARDINAL , in which GPE and PERSON had appeared as witnesses against the applicants’ interests and in favour of their employer .

The article entitled “ When you ’ve rented out your arse you ca n’t shit when you please ” read as follows :

“ If you belong to a works council and you have to sign agreements with your employers that will never be honoured , just to keep you quiet , and agree to changes that only benefit their cronies , and to pay cuts and other sell - outs , then you ’ve swapped your dignity for an armchair , [ and ] you have the dubious merit of achieving the same level of infamy as politicians and policemen . You see , you shut up and you shrewdly agree to all sorts of shenanigans . When you ’ve rented out your arse , you ca n’t shit when you please . If you ’re a despicable ‘ professional trade unionist’ and you ’ve thus sold your soul to the union , you ’ll never have a surge of sincerity , because your status would be threatened . You say what the union tells you to say , and as the unions are ‘ condoms’ on freedom , your lips are sealed just like your anal sphincter , because you ’ve rented out your arse and you ca n’t shit when you please .

You can see the injustices meted out on your colleagues , the totally irrational way of dealing with their problems and the constant persecution to which they are subjected , but say nothing , for fear of drawing attention to yourself . Once upon a time , in DATE , you were a rebel who criticised the system – you would curse conventionalism and rant against the rules and regulations . You were caustic , dynamic , cutting , impulsive , jovial . But a couple of favours received have gradually cooled your fiery temperament , stoked your self - esteem and put the dampers on your feelings . From time to time you have a pang of nostalgia and you would like to fart , but your sphincter is sealed , because you ’ve rented out your arse and ca n’t shit when you please .

You ’re fed up with your work , pissed off , anxious , stressed and in despair , because of the longer working TIME and the responsibilities , products , promotions and pressures . You could work anywhere , do anything without having to get up at the time others go to bed . You could break everything up , tear it to pieces , crush and demolish it all ... but your hands are tied by credits , IOUs and debts . You are crushed by your new SUV , your children ’s after - school activities , and DATE mortgage on your semi - detached house . And you let yourself be humiliated , you swallow your pride , you shut up and you accept , because when you ’ve rented out your arse , you ca n’t shit when you please . ”

The newsletter was distributed to staff and displayed on the trade union ’s noticeboard on the company ’s LOC .

The employment tribunal observed at the outset that the cause of the dismissal was the content of the newsletter and not the applicants’ trade - union membership . It referred in its judgment to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the context of labour relations and to the fact that it was not unlimited . It found that the limits to this right had to be interpreted in accordance with the principle of good faith , which in labour relations had to involve respect for the interests of the employer and the minimum requirements of coexistence in a professional environment . The judgment reiterated the ORG case - law to the effect that the right to respect for freedom of expression was subject to limits derived from labour relations , since the contract of employment created a series of rights and reciprocal obligations that circumscribed the exercise of the right to respect for freedom of expression . For that reason , certain manifestations of this right that might be legitimate in other contexts were not legitimate in the context of labour relations , even though the requirement to act in good faith did not always imply a duty of loyalty to the point of subjecting the worker to the employer ’s interests .

As to the newsletter ’s content , the tribunal took the view that the cartoon and speech bubbles on the cover , together with the articles inside , were offensive and exceeded the limits of freedom of expression and information , impugning the honour and dignity of the human resources manager and of delivery men A. and B. , and damaging the image of the company P. Lastly , it noted that the dismissal could not be declared null and void , since it was based on serious misconduct as provided for by law , and found that the applicants’ fundamental rights had not been breached .

The applicants appealed . In a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the judgment under appeal in so far as it concerned the applicants .

The court referred , among other things , to the limits imposed by the principle of good faith between parties to a contract of employment and to the necessary balance that judicial decisions had to strike between a worker ’s obligations under the contract and his freedom of expression . The balancing exercise had to enable it to be determined whether or not the reaction of the company that dismissed the employee was legitimate . For the court , the publication of the offending drawing and articles had clearly been harmful to the dignity of the persons concerned and had overstepped the limits of admissible criticism , as the exercise of freedom of expression did not justify the use of insulting , offensive or vexatious expressions that went beyond the legitimate exercise of the right to criticise and clearly impugned the respectability of the persons concerned . The company P. had , moreover , duly shown that the ORG dismissal was not a measure of reprisal or punishment , but was based on a genuine , serious and sufficient cause for deciding to terminate their contracts of employment .

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law , seeking harmonisation of the relevant case - law . In a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed their appeal on the ground that the decision produced for purposes of comparison , namely a judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE , was not pertinent .

Relying on DATE ( right to a fair hearing ) of LAW , and on LAW and CARDINAL taken together ( freedom of expression and association ) , the applicants lodged an amparo appeal with ORG . In a decision of DATE , served on DATE , ORG found the appeal inadmissible for lack of constitutional content . The decision reads as follows :

“ ... Firstly ... there is not enough evidence to show that the [ appellants’ ] dismissal was an act of reprisal on the part of the respondent company because of the judicial proceedings they had brought against it to assert their rights ... Secondly , as to the [ alleged ] interference with trade - union freedom guaranteed by LAW ( this complaint incorporating the ORG complaint under LAW in so far as they alleged discrimination on trade - union grounds ) , this is inadmissible as [ the appellants ] have not provided sufficient evidence to show that the company ’s action was intended to restrict , hamper or prevent the exercise of their right to freedom of association , on account of their union membership or activities in a trade union . In line with what this court has repeatedly said , such evidence does not consist of a mere allegation of a constitutional violation but must be sufficient for it to be inferred that the violation could have been constituted ... which is not the case here , since the circumstances alleged do not give rise to any suspicion as to the potential violation in question . In their allegations , the appellants have simply expressed their disagreement with the decisions rendered by the courts below , which found in decisions giving reasons and not being manifestly unreasonable that they had committed the acts of which the company had accused them in their letters of dismissal .

Thirdly , there has not been a breach of LAW taken together with LAW ( a ) , in the form of an infringement of the appellants’ right to freedom of expression in the context of their union activity , since this fundamental right does not encompass any right to insult others . As the Court held recently in judgment no . PERSON of DATE ( legal ground CARDINAL ) , reiterating its case - law , although the LAW does not prohibit the use of hurtful , embarrassing or vituperative expressions in every circumstance , the constitutional or lack of veracity , are offensive or defamatory and are not pertinent for the purpose of conveying the opinions or information in question . The application of that jurisprudence to the present case leads the ORG to the conclusion that the appellants’ right to freedom of expression has not been infringed , since they used that right in an excessive manner by means of value judgments expressed through cartoons and comments that were offensive and humiliating for the persons concerned and impugned their honour and reputation . [ Those cartoons and comments ] were not necessary for others to form an opinion about the facts of which the appellants wished to complain , and were therefore gratuitous and not necessary for the exercise of freedom of expression in a trade - union context . ”

The relevant provisions of the Spanish Constitution read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The following rights shall be recognised and protected :

( a ) the right freely to express and disseminate thoughts , ideas and opinions orally , in writing or by any other means of reproduction ;

( d ) the right to receive and communicate true information by any means of dissemination . ...

The exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any prior censorship .

These freedoms shall be limited by respect for the rights secured in this Part , by the provisions of the implementing Acts and in particular by the right to honour and to a private life and the right to control use of one ’s likeness and to the protection of youth and children . ”

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right to associate freely ... Freedom of association shall include the right to form trade unions or to join a trade union of one ’s choosing , and the right for trade unions to establish confederations and to set up or join international trade - union organisations . No one shall be obliged to join a trade union .

“ CARDINAL . NORP The employer may decide to terminate a contract of employment by dismissing the employee for serious and negligent failure to perform his or her obligations .

ORG - compliance with contractual obligations shall include :

( c ) Verbal or physical attacks on the employer or persons working in the company , or members of their families living with them . ”

Justified dismissal shall entail the termination of the contract without any right of compensation ... ”

On DATE the General Conference of the International Labour Organization ( ILO ) adopted Recommendation No . CARDINAL concerning ORG representatives , point CARDINAL of which reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP Workers’ representatives acting on behalf of a trade union should be authorised to post trade - union notices on the premises of the undertaking in a place or places agreed on with the management and to which the workers have easy access .

NORP The management should permit workers’ representatives acting on behalf of a trade union to distribute news sheets , pamphlets , publications and other documents of the union among the workers of the undertaking .

NORP The union notices and documents referred to in this paragraph should relate to normal trade - union activities and their posting and distribution should not prejudice the orderly operation and tidiness of the undertaking . ”

At its CARDINAL session in DATE , ORG adopted a ORG concerning trade - union rights and their relation to civil liberties . The Conference explicitly listed the fundamental rights essential for the exercise of freedom of association , in particular : ( a ) the right to freedom and security of person and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention ; ( b ) freedom of opinion and expression and in particular freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek , receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers ; ( c ) freedom of assembly ; ( d ) the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal ; and ( e ) the right to protection of the property of trade unions .

In DATE the ORG published a report entitled “ ORG Trade - Union Rights and Civil Liberties ” . The relevant passages of that report read as follows :

“ Part I. Freedom of association and protection of the right to organise

LAW . Trade - union rights and civil liberties

Introduction

The Declaration of GPE ... officially acknowledged the relationship between civil liberties and trade - union rights by proclaiming in Article GPE ) that freedom of expression and of association are essential to sustained progress and referring in LAW to the fundamental rights which are an inseparable part of human dignity . Since then , this relationship has been repeatedly affirmed and highlighted , both by the ORG ’s supervisory bodies and in LAW adopted by ORG .

The information available , in particular on the nature of the complaints submitted to ORG , shows that the main difficulties encountered by trade - union organisations and their leaders and members relate to basic rights , in particular to the right to security of the person , freedom of assembly , freedom of opinion and expression , as well as the right to protection of trade - union property and LOC . ...

Freedom of opinion and expression

Another essential aspect of trade - union rights is the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise . The full exercise of trade - union rights calls for a free flow of information , opinions and ideas , and workers , employers and their organisations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their meetings , in their publications , and in the course of their other activities . In cases in which the issue of a trade - union publication is subject to the granting of a licence , mandatory licensing should not be subject to the mere discretion of licensing authorities , nor should it be used as a means of imposing prior restraint on the subject matter of publications ; in addition any application for such a licence should be dealt with promptly . ... Measures of administrative control – for example , the withdrawal of a licence granted to a trade - union newspaper , the control of printing plants and equipment , or the control of paper supply DATE should be subject to prompt and independent judicial review .

An important aspect of freedom of expression is the freedom of speech of delegates of workers’ and ORG organisations meetings , conferences and reunions , and in particular to the International Labour Conference . ...

State of emergency

The ORG considers that the guarantees set out in the international labour LAW , in particular those relating to freedom of association , can only be effective if the civil and political rights enshrined in LAW and other international instruments , notably LAW , are genuinely recognised and protected . These intangible and universal principles , the importance of which the ORG wishes to emphasise particularly on the occasion of the CARDINALth anniversary of the creation of the ORG and the CARDINALth anniversary of the Declaration of Philadelphia , should constitute the common ideal to which all peoples and all nations aspire . ”

The fifth edition ( revised ) of ORG and Principles of ORG , published in DATE , contains a summary of the principles formulated by that ORG in the context of individual or collective complaints concerning alleged violations of trade - union rights . The general principles concerning freedom of opinion and expression include the following :

“ CARDINAL . The full exercise of trade - union rights calls for a free flow of information , opinions and ideas , and to this end workers , employers and their organisations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their meetings , in their publications and in the course of other trade - union activities . Nevertheless , in expressing their opinions , trade - union organisations should respect the limits of propriety and refrain from the use of insulting language . ( See the DATE Digest , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , Case No . CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , ORG . DATE , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , ORG . DATE , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , Case No . DATE , para . CARDINAL ; and ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL . )

The right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is an essential aspect of trade - union rights . ( See the DATE Digest , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , Case No . DATE , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , Case No . CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , Case No . CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , ORG . DATE , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , ORG , para . CARDINAL ; and ORG , Case No . CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL . )

The right to express opinions without previous authorisation through the press is one of the essential elements of the rights of occupational organisations . ( See the DATE Digest , para . CARDINAL . )

NORP The freedom of expression which should be enjoyed by trade unions and their leaders should also be guaranteed when they wish to criticise the government ’s economic and social policy . ( See the CARDINAL Digest , para . CARDINAL . )

The prohibition of the placing of posters stating the point of view of a central trade - union organisation is an unacceptable restriction on trade - union activities . ( See the DATE Digest , para . CARDINAL . )

NORP The publication and distribution of news and information of general or special interest to trade unions and their members constitutes a legitimate trade - union activity and the application of measures designed to control publication and means of information may involve serious interference by administrative authorities with this activity . In such cases , the exercise of administrative authority should be subject to judicial review at the earliest possible moment . ( See the CARDINAL Digest , para . CARDINAL ; ORG , Case No . DATE , para . CARDINAL ; and ORG , Case No . DATE , para . CARDINAL . )

While the imposition of general censorship is primarily a matter that relates to civil liberties rather than to trade - union rights , the censorship of the press during an industrial dispute may have a direct effect on the conduct of the dispute and may prejudice the parties by not allowing the true facts surrounding the dispute to become known . ( See the DATE Digest , para . CARDINAL . )

When issuing their publications , trade - union organisations should have regard , in the interests of the development of the trade - union movement , to the principles enunciated by ORG at its CARDINAL session ( DATE ) for the protection of the freedom and independence of the trade - union movement and the safeguarding of its fundamental task , which is to ensure the social and economic well - being of all workers . ( See the DATE Digest , para . CARDINAL . )

In a case in which a trade - union newspaper , in its allusions and accusations against the government , seemed to have exceeded the admissible limits of controversy , the ORG pointed out that trade - union publications should refrain from extravagance of language . The primary role of publications of this type should be to deal with matters essentially relating to the defence and furtherance of the interests of the ORG members in particular and with labour questions in general . ORG , nevertheless , recognised that it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between what is political and what is strictly trade union in character . It pointed out that these CARDINAL notions overlap , and it is inevitable and sometimes normal for trade - union publications to take a stand on questions having political aspects , as well as on strictly economic or social questions . ( See the CARDINAL Digest , para . CARDINAL . ) ”

The American Convention on Human Rights has a special Additional Protocol concerning economic , social and cultural rights , the “ Protocol of GPE ” . Adopted and opened for signature on CARDINAL DATE , it entered into force on DATE . Article CARDINAL of that LAW , entitled “ Trade - union rights ” reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The GPE Parties shall ensure :

( a ) The right of workers to organise trade unions and to join the union of their choice for the purpose of protecting and promoting their interests . As an extension of that right , the GPE Parties shall permit trade unions to establish national federations or confederations , or to affiliate with those that already exist , as well as to form international trade - union organisations and to affiliate with that of their choice . The GPE Parties shall also permit trade unions , federations and confederations to function freely ;

( b ) The right to strike .

The exercise of the rights set forth above may be subject only to restrictions established by law , provided that such restrictions are characteristic of a NORP society and necessary for safeguarding public order or for protecting public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others . Members of the armed forces and the police and of other essential public services shall be subject to limitations and restrictions established by law .

No one may be compelled to belong to a trade union . ”

In its ORG OC-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG emphasised the fundamental nature of freedom of expression for the existence of a democratic society , stressing among other things that freedom of expression was a sine qua non for the development of trade unions . It found as follows ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Opinion ) :

“ Freedom of expression is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a NORP society rests . It is indispensable for the formation of public opinion . It is also a conditio sine qua non for the development of political parties , trade unions , scientific and cultural societies and , in general , those who wish to influence the public . It represents , in short , the means that enable the community , when exercising its options , to be sufficiently informed . Consequently , it can be said that a society that is not well informed is not a society that is truly free . ”

Comparative - law research has shown that the disciplinary powers of employers in the member ORG are very diverse . There is a convergence of legal systems among the CARDINAL countries examined : they all provide for and organise employees’ freedom of expression and trade - union freedom , usually by means of norms of constitutional value , or , where that is not the case , by legislative regulations . Employees serving as representatives benefit from special protection to help them discharge their duties . The regulations in all countries , in order to reconcile the exercise of this right with the essential rights and freedoms of others , fix rules providing for penalties in cases of abuse of the right to freedom of expression . The powers vested in employers allow , if necessary , for the exercise of disciplinary action against an employee or staff member whose conduct can be characterised as improper exercise of his freedom of expression . The case - law in such matters is consistent and shows that there is a systematic examination of proportionality between the dismissal and the conduct on which it is based .

The domestic - law instruments provide for the punishment of any conduct by an employee that is capable of infringing the rights and freedoms of others .

The relevant rules may , firstly , be laid down by LAW , or by provisions concerning the possibility of bringing an action to establish liability . In most cases , criminal notions such as defamation , damage to honour or reputation , or insults will enable the person claiming to be a victim of such infringement to bring proceedings to establish the liability of the person who made the comments at issue .

Rules in ORG or norms applicable to public servants will also govern the exercise of freedom of expression of staff members , and if necessary provide for the punishment of any abuse . Similar limitations may be imposed on public officials , whether or not they have “ civil servant ” status .

Disciplinary authority is CARDINAL of the essential prerogatives of the employer , whether private or public . In this connection , employers have a broad discretion to impose the sanction that they consider the best adapted to the accusations against the employee ; the scale of possible sanctions encompasses the power to dismiss a person who has seriously compromised the interests of the company or the public service . In parallel , this power of dismissal is accompanied by a prohibition on dismissing employees on grounds relating to trade - union activity . A measure of dismissal may be based on misconduct or on a legitimate ground . In the first case , it relates to DATE identified – form of conduct . In the second , the conduct is considered in general terms .

The proportionality of a measure of dismissal in relation to the conduct of the employee concerned underlies all the legislation analysed .

The applicable law in the GPE examined shows that any abuse of the freedom of expression afforded to employees or public servants is always regarded as a reprehensible fact capable of justifying disciplinary measures that could go as far as dismissal . For that purpose , factual elements of an objective nature are taken into account , such as : ( i ) the seriousness of the misconduct ; and ( ii ) the characterisation of the comments , the extent of their publication , and also certain subjective elements . The latter include the personal situation of the employee , any abuse of freedom of expression and the question whether the conduct falls outside “ normal ” trade - union activity .

In all the countries studied , the general rules are clear and allow the employee ’s right to freedom of expression to be balanced against the rights and prerogatives of the employer . Their implementation is more problematic , since a restriction on a fundamental right can only be accepted if , having regard to the measure decided , it is proportionate to the aim pursued . Only through a case - by - case approach is it possible to grasp the substance of the jurisprudential solution adopted in each type of situation .


Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, abuse of the right of petition);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Inadmissible under Art. 3;Pecuniary damage - reserved;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

In DATE the NORP authorities nationalised the house owned by his parents . In DATE his family was deported to GPE and to GPE .

On DATE the ORG enacted Law No . CARDINAL “ on the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime ” . The PERSON enabled the victims of the NORP repression to claim restitution of their confiscated or nationalised property .

In DATE the applicant lodged an action with ORG ( FAC ) by which he sought the restitution of his parents ' house . As the former tenants of the house had purchased it from the ORG , the applicant sought a judicial ruling declaring the purchase contracts null and void . He also requested the eviction of all the occupants of the house .

On DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant and ordered the restitution of the house . It declared null and void the contracts by which the house had been sold to the tenants . The court further ordered ORG to evict all the occupants , and indicated that ORG was to provide them with alternative accommodation .

ORG , ORG and the occupants lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) against the judgment of ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment with some textual amendments . Since nobody lodged an appeal in cassation , the judgment of DATE became final .

In DATE , DATE and DATE the bailiff assigned to the case brought proceedings against ORG for failure to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE along with CARDINAL similar judgments .

On DATE ORG issued a decision by which a fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( the equivalent of EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL at the time ) was imposed on the Head of ORG for failure to comply with the judgments .

On DATE the same court issued a decision by which it imposed a fine of MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL at the time ) on ORG . The court found inter alia that the shortage of funds and the lack of available apartments could not be relied upon by ORG to justify the failure to comply with the above judgments .

ORG lodged an appeal against that decision and on DATE the ORG quashed it on the ground that the shortage of funds and the lack of available apartments had objectively impeded ORG from complying with the judgments .

On DATE ORG issued a decision by which it imposed a fine of MDL CARDINAL on ORG .

DATE the applicant lodged numerous complaints about the non - enforcement of the judgment of DATE with ORG , ORG and ORG . In their replies , ORG and ORG informed the applicant that due to the lack of funds for the construction of apartment buildings and due to the lack of available alternative accommodation for the evicted persons , the judgment of DATE could not be complied with .

NORP In DATE CARDINAL occupants of the applicant 's house lodged with ORG a request for revision of the judgments of DATE and DATE . Relying on Article CARDINAL of the new Code of Civil Procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) they argued in their request that new information have become known to them . They also asked the court to extend the deadline for lodging the request in view of the fact that the new information had been obtained by them from ORG in DATE .

On DATE the Court of Appeal found in favour of the occupants , quashed the judgments of DATE and DATE and ordered the re - opening of the proceedings in the light of the newly discovered facts . The court also decided to extend the time limit for lodging the request .

The new facts relied upon by ORG in its judgment were an issue of ORG , and a few certificates from ORG and from ORG dated DATE and DATE . According to these documents , due to a change of numbers of the houses on the street , it was unclear whether the house provided for in the final judgments or another house belonged to the applicant 's family . ORG did not specify in its judgment whether LAW had a retroactive effect ; nor were reasons given for extending the time limit for the lodging of the revision request .

The relevant provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL-XII of DATE , as amended on DATE , read as follows :

“ LAW . Restitution of property to persons subjected to repression

( CARDINAL ) Any citizen of GPE who has been subjected to political repression and subsequently rehabilitated , shall have returned to him , at his request or at the request of his heirs , any property which was confiscated , nationalised or taken away from him in some other way . ...

( CARDINAL ) Any deed of sale and purchase or other form of transfer of a house , building or other construction or goods that have been confiscated , nationalised or taken away from a person who has been a victim of repression may , when made after his rehabilitation , be declared null and void by the courts on an application by the victim or his heirs . ”

In DATE a new paragraph was added to the above Article by virtue of LAW . CARDINAL of DATE , which reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) NORP person evicted from a house that is the subject of a restitution order shall be provided upon his eviction with accommodation on a priority basis by the local public administration authorities , in accordance with the legislation . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW , in force DATE and DATE “ the old Code of Civil Procedure ” , reads as follows :

Final judgments ... can be revised in the following cases :

CARDINAL ) NORP the discovery of new facts or circumstances , that were unknown and could not be known earlier by the parties to the proceedings ;

“ The creditor or the debtor against whom enforcement proceedings are pending may lodge an appeal against any action which the bailiff takes or refuses to take in the enforcement proceedings . ... ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW , in force DATE and DATE “ the old Civil Code ” , reads as follows :

“ Full redress shall be provided by the ORG in the manner prescribed by law for damage caused to a natural or juristic person by the illegal action of the criminal - investigation organs , the prosecution service or the courts , regardless of whether a public servant from CARDINAL of those bodies has been at fault . ”

According to ORG a GPE ) for DATE ( page CARDINAL ) , Article CARDINAL of the old Civil Code , along with other relevant provisions of the Moldovan Law , was applicable in the following situations :

illegal detention , illegal arrest , illegal indictment , illegal conviction ;

illegal search , seizure or distraint of goods within criminal proceedings ;

illegal administrative arrest , illegal fining ;

illegal operative investigative measures ;

illegal seizure of accounting documents , money , stamps , blocking of accounts .

On DATE a new Civil Code entered into force . Article CARDINAL of the new Civil Code reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Damage caused by an unlawful administrative decision or as a result of a failure by a public authority or public official to act upon a request made within the statutory time - limit shall be made good by the public authority ....

( CARDINAL ) Individuals shall be entitled to claim general damages caused as a result of the acts foreseen in paragraph CARDINAL of the present Article . ( ... ) ”

On DATE a new Code of Civil Procedure entered into force . Article CARDINAL , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

Grounds for revision

Revision may be requested :

c ) When new and essential facts or circumstances have been discovered , that were unknown and could not be known earlier ;

Article CARDINAL , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

A revision request may be lodged :

c ) within DATE from the date on which the concerned person has come to know the essential circumstances or facts of the case which were unknown to him / her earlier and which could not have been known to him / her earlier ....


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Rīga .

From an unspecified date , the applicant , together with her partner PERSON , made use of a plot of land in PERSON parish . The rights to use the land were allocated to the latter by a decision of LOC . The property consisted of a dwelling house with an extension , greenhouses and a garden . After the death of the applicant 's partner in DATE and the applicant 's subsequent eviction from an apartment in ORG , she continued to reside in the property in PERSON parish and to gain an income by selling the products cultivated there .

In DATE the applicant found out that the dwelling house , greenhouses and the garden had been destroyed . She requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against the alleged perpetrator , PERSON , who did not contest the allegations .

On DATE , having examined the applicant 's complaints , the police officer of ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds that the rights to use the aforementioned property had passed to PERSON ( the son of the late V.M. ) and no complaints whatsoever had been received from him regarding the alleged destruction of the property .

From DATE onwards the applicant has been repeatedly considered as a “ low - income person ” ( maznodrošināta persona ) , as the amount of her old - age retirement benefit did not exceed PERCENT of the established minimum monthly salary in GPE . From DATE to the present day the applicant has been renting an apartment in a social building where the DATE utilities charges have averaged ORG ( EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE and , around ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE . Apart from receiving an old - age retirement pension in the amount of ORG ( LAW ) ( the amount at the material time ) , in DATE and DATE , at the time of bringing the civil proceedings the applicant was also in receipt of the following municipality assistance : a housing allowance averaging ORG ( EUR CARDINAL ) per month ; CARDINAL lump - sum payments together totalling ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) assigned to cover housing and utilities expenses ; health insurance in the amount of FAC ( FAC ) and a lump sum in the amount of ORG EUR CARDINAL ) to improve the condition of her health .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for damages against P. in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( ORG ) and asked the court for exemption from the court fee ( also referred to as a ORG fee ) in the amount of ORG ( ORG CARDINAL ) owing to her poor financial situation . In support of her application , the applicant attached thereto a certificate confirming her low - income status .

On DATE , by a decision of ORG , the applicant 's claim for damages was dismissed on the grounds that she had failed to demonstrate that she had the right to use the aforementioned property .

On DATE , on the applicant 's appeal , ORG of ORG revoked the above decision and forwarded the matter for examination once again , finding that :

“ The Civil Law grants to everyone a right to claim damages . [ I]n a situation where damage has been inflicted , everyone is entitled to come before a court in order to protect their infringed rights . [ Thus ] , the applicant has a right to claim damages , and this should not be linked to her rights to [ ... ] use the [ property ] ” .

On DATE ORG partly upheld the applicant 's request and reduced the amount of the court fee to ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the applicant 's ancillary complaint whereby she requested a further reduction in the court fee . The court noted that the claim concerned material damages and that there was no ground for a further reduction . It noted inter alia :

“ Pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG the applicant can ask to postpone payment of the court costs allocated to ORG revenue , or divide payment thereof into instalments . ”

Subsequently the applicant asked for postponement of payment of the fee until the court adopted a decision concerning her claim . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request , noting :

“ Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG authorises the court to postpone or divide into instalments only those court costs which had been allocated to ORG revenues , [ and it does not authorise ] the postponement of [ the paying of ] ORG fees at the time of lodging a claim ” .

On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint and upheld the lower court 's decision .

On DATE the applicant lodged an identical claim for damages and asked to be exempted from payment of the court fee . She argued that her financial situation was poor , that her property had been destroyed , and her only income was an old - age pension .

On DATE , ORG partly upheld the applicant 's request and again reduced the fee to ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) , taking account of the reasoning underpinning the decision adopted on DATE by ORG in identical circumstances .

In an ancillary complaint , the applicant appealed against the partial reduction of the court fee and explained that her DATE old - age pension was about LVL CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , from which she had to clear the rent and utilities arrears for the apartment she had been evicted from .

On DATE ORG of ORG , in a final decision , upheld the decision of the lower court , noting that there were no grounds for a further reduction of the ORG fee or complete exemption . It stated inter alia that :

“ Pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG the applicant can ask to postpone payment of court costs as allocated to ORG revenues , or divide payment thereof into instalments . ”

The court subsequently set a time - limit of CARDINAL DATE by which the applicant was obliged to rectify the deficiencies of her claim , i.e. add proof of payment of the court fee .

According to the Government , the decision was served on the applicant not DATE . According to the applicant , she received the above decision on DATE .

Section CARDINAL Costs of adjudication :

Section CARDINAL State ( court ) fees :

( CARDINAL ) For each statement of claim – original claims or counterclaims , applications of a third person statement of claim with an independent claim regarding the subject - matter of the dispute , submitted in a procedure which has already commenced , applications in special adjudication procedure matters , and other claims applications provided for in this Section submitted to the court DATE a ORG fee shall be paid in the amount set out as follows :

Section CARDINAL Exceptions from general provisions regarding court costs :

( CARDINAL ) A court or a judge , upon considering the material situation of a natural person , shall exempt him or her partly or fully from the payment of court costs into ORG revenues , as well as postpone payment of court costs allocated to ORG revenues , or divide payment thereof into instalments .

Section CARDINAL provides that in a situation where court documents are sent by post , it ought to be assumed that a document will reach the recipient within DATE following DATE on which it was posted .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that when a civil claim has not been allowed , the applicant bringing the claim is not prevented from repeatedly submitting an identical claim in compliance with the general procedures prescribed in this PERSON .

According to paragraph CARDINAL . , a “ low - income status ” is , inter alia , that granted to an individual who receives an old - age pension , resides alone , and whose DATE income does not exceed PERCENT of the minimum salary as prescribed by law . Besides , in order to be granted low - income status , the person has to prove that she or he does not own a property that could be used to generate income and that she or he has no debts and is not owed money .