Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 2 - Right to life)

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants are PERSON ( also known as PERSON ) PERSON , who was born in DATE , PERSON , who was born in DATE and PERSON , who was born in DATE . They live in GPE , GPE . The first applicant is the brother of Valid ( also spelled as PERSON and also known as GPE ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ; the second applicant is his mother and the third applicant is his sister .

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

At the material time the applicants and Valid Dzhabrailov lived at ORG FAC in the settlement of ORG , in the PERSON district , GPE . At TIME on DATE ( in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as DATE ) the applicants and PERSON were at home , when a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms arrived at their gate . The men arrived in a white ORG car ( “ PERSON ) , a blue VAZ-CARDINAL car ( “ NORP ” ) , a khaki - coloured military UAZ car ( “ таблетка ” ) and a UAZ car . The men broke into the house and dispersed into different rooms . The intruders , who spoke unaccented NORP , neither identified themselves nor produced any documents . The applicants thought that they were NORP servicemen .

The intruders woke up the second and third applicants , lined them up against a wall and threatened to shoot them if they moved . After that the servicemen went into the room where the first applicant and PERSON were sleeping . They woke them up , forced the brothers to the floor , handcuffed them and blindfolded PERSON with the hood of his sweater . Then they took Valid and PERSON passports , beat them , dragged them outside and forced them to the ground . When the second applicant asked the intruders where they were taking her sons , the servicemen told her that they were taking them to a local department of the interior ( “ в отдел ” ) for an identity check . After that they forced Valid and PERSON , who were already bleeding , into the military UAZ car and drove away to an unknown destination . While travelling in the car , the servicemen beat and kicked the brothers .

Upon arrival at the point of destination , the servicemen took Valid PERSON and the first applicant out of the car , put plastic bags over their heads and bound the bags with adhesive tape . The brothers did not know where they had been taken , but they could hear the sound of military vehicles and helicopters . The first applicant thought that they had arrived at the main base of the NORP military forces in GPE , GPE .

After that Valid and PERSON were forced to crawl on their hands and knees into a basement where they were thrown on to a cement floor . The brothers were cold and bleeding . Some time later the abductors came into the cell . Valid PERSON asked them why they had been abducted . In response CARDINAL of the servicemen gave him several blows to the head and in the stomach with his rifle butt . Valid Dzhabrailov fell unconscious and was dragged outside . After that the brothers were separated and placed into different cells .

The first applicant was taken into a small cell in a basement , measuring QUANTITY . The cell had an electric light , a bunk bed and no windows . From the cell he could hear his brother PERSON being interrogated and screaming as a result of being beaten .

After a while CARDINAL masked men in camouflage uniforms came into the applicant 's cell . They asked him a number of questions , such as : whether he had ever laid any landmines and whether he had known any members of illegal armed groups in his village . They beat him with their fists , pistols and a heavy flashlight and kicked him with their heavy boots . The applicant was subjected to such interrogations and beatings several times . The men pressurised the applicant to confess to involvement in illegal armed groups . For DATE of his detention in the basement the first applicant was not given any food or drink .

It appears that Valid PERSON was detained in the same building as the first applicant . DATE he was subjected to interrogations and beatings .

On DATE CARDINAL officers took the first applicant out of the basement , put a plastic bag over his head , bound it and his hands with adhesive tape and pushed him into a military UAZ car . In the vehicle the first applicant felt someone 's heavy , cold body on the floor . He realised that this was the body of his brother , PERSON .

The CARDINAL servicemen took the first applicant and the body of Valid Dzhabrailov to an abandoned building of a former chemical plant in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny . CARDINAL of them shot the first applicant in the head ; the applicant was not killed , but wounded , and he was able to pretend to be dead .

The servicemen carried the first applicant and Valid PERSON 's body into a pit and placed them under a piece of a construction block . Then they laid explosives on the first applicant and placed Valid PERSON 's body on top of them . After that they lit the fuse . Having done that , they got back in the car and drove away .

The first applicant managed to set himself free and extinguish the burning fuse . He threw the explosives away before they exploded . He ran out into the street and stopped the driver of a passing car who drove him home .

Upon returning home the first applicant did not immediately seek medical help ; that came at a later stage . The first applicant obtained the following medical statements and submitted them to the ORG :

CARDINAL ) Medical statement issued by a neuropathologist at the CARDINALrd Grozny town hospital , dated DATE . The document stated that , as a result of a splinter wound to the head , PERSON was suffering from cephalgia ( pain in the skull ) , asthenia and neurosis .

CARDINAL ) Medical statement issued by a neuropathologist at the CARDINALrd Grozny town hospital , dated DATE . The document stated that , as a result of a tangential wound to the head received in DATE , PERSON was suffering from asthenia and neurosis .

CARDINAL ) Medical statement issued by a surgeon at the CARDINALrd Grozny town hospital , dated DATE . The document stated that the applicant had undergone a medical examination of the tangential wound inflicted to his head in DATE .

On DATE ( in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as CARDINAL DATE ) the applicants , their relatives and neighbours went to the Zavodskoy district of ORG . They found Valid PERSON 's body where it had been left by the first applicant and took it home . According to the witnesses , PERSON and Ms A.M. , the body showed traces of torture : it was black from the beatings ; the wrists and ankles had been cut to the bone from the wearing of handcuffs and shackles ; the palms and feet had been crushed and the head was hardly recognisable . They found a piece of metal wire on the neck but there was no trace of firearm wounds on the body .

Valid Dzhabrailov was buried soon afterwards before anyone had contacted medical institutions or law enforcement authorities . CARDINAL certificates were issued in connection with his death : the medical statement confirming Valid PERSON 's death , dated DATE and PERSON death certificate , stating that his death had occurred on CARDINAL DATE .

In support of their statements , the applicants submitted : an account by PERSON , dated DATE ; an account by PERSON , dated DATE ; an account by the first applicant , dated DATE ; an account by the second applicant , dated DATE ; an account by the third applicant , undated , and the CARDINAL medical certificates , CARDINAL dated DATE and CARDINAL dated DATE .

The Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants . However , they pointed out that the investigation file contained neither a mention of the first applicant 's beating in the car following the abduction nor his assertion that he had heard Valid Dzhabrailov screaming from being beaten while in detention .

NORP Since DATE the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies , including the district department of ORG ( the ROVD ) and prosecutors at various levels . They have been supported in their efforts by the NGO , PERSON . In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to the events of DATE and asked for assistance and details of the investigation . Mostly , these enquiries have remained unanswered , or purely formal replies have been given in which the applicants ' requests have been forwarded to various prosecutors ' offices . The applicants submitted to the ORG some of the letters sent to the authorities and their replies . These documents , as well as the documents submitted by the ORG , are summarised below .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor 's office inspected the crime scene at the applicants ' house . Nothing was collected from the scene .

On DATE an officer of the Zavodskoy ROVD informed his superiors that at TIME on that date the ROVD had received information about the discovery of Valid PERSON ' body in an abandoned building on the premises of a chemical plant and of the first applicant with a gunshot wound in his head . The latter stated that he and his brother , Valid , had been abducted from their house at TIME on DATE by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms ; that they had been detained in an unidentified place and then taken by the abductors to the chemical factory in a UAZ vehicle .

On DATE , under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) , the ORG district prosecutor 's office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Valid and PERSON . The case file was given DATE ( in the submitted documents the number was also referred to as DATE and DATE ) .

On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene at the place where Valid PERSON 's body had been discovered . The investigators inspected the body on the spot and drafted a report to this effect . As a result , it was established that Valid PERSON 's skull , face , ribs and upper and lower limbs seemed intact ; no metal wire was found on his neck . Nothing was collected from the scene .

On DATE the ORG town prosecutor 's office instituted an investigation into the murder of Valid PERSON and the case file was given the number DATE .

On DATE the first and third applicants were granted victim status in the criminal case concerning the abduction and were questioned .

During questioning on DATE the third applicant stated that at TIME on DATE a group of military servicemen had arrived at their house in several vehicles and had broken in . They had been armed with automatic guns ; their faces had been covered with masks . The intruders had woken up the first applicant and PERSON , taken their passports and told the third applicant in NORP that they would check her brothers ' identities and release them . After that the servicemen had pushed the brothers into a grey UAZ car and taken them away . On DATE a woman had arrived at the applicants ' house and told them that the first applicant and PERSON had been in LOC . The applicants had immediately informed the district police officer about it who had gone to PERSON and returned with the body of PERSON and the first applicant . The body had had numerous injuries and the first applicant had received a gunshot wound to the head . The witness further stated that she had learnt from the first applicant that the brothers had been handcuffed and taken to a basement made of concrete box units . At some point later they had been separated and the first applicant had not seen Valid PERSON for TIME . In TIME of DATE a LANGUAGE - speaking man in a camouflage uniform had removed the handcuffs from the first applicant , bound his hands , put a sack over his head and bound it with adhesive tape . He had pushed the applicant into a UAZ vehicle beside a cold corpse ; the first applicant had thought that it must have been the body of his brother , Valid . The car had been driven for TIME ; then it had stopped and the first applicant had been taken out . He had been dragged QUANTITY away from the road ; then he had been forced to the ground and shot in the head ; he had pretended to be dead . After that they had put Valid PERSON 's body on top of the applicant ; then they had placed CARDINAL pieces of trotyl between the brothers ' bodies and lit them . CARDINAL of the abductors had suggested to the other in NORP : “ Lets wait until it explodes ” but the other one had said that they 'd better leave quickly . After that they had got back into the car and driven away . The first applicant had managed to extinguish the explosive device and made it to the road , where he had stopped a car which had taken him to the Zavodskoy ROVD . On DATE the investigators again questioned the third applicant who provided a statement similar to the CARDINAL given on DATE . She added that the abductors had told her that they had been taking PERSON and PERSON to PERSON for an identity check ; that the abductors had been a group of CARDINAL men , CARDINAL of whom had broken into their house .

During questioning on DATE the first applicant stated that at TIME on DATE he and his brother , Valid , had been abducted from their home by a group of CARDINAL armed military servicemen who had arrived in CARDINAL grey UAZ vehicles , a white CARDINAL - door “ GPE ” car and a white “ PERSON ” minivan . The abductors had blindfolded the brothers and pushed them into a UAZ vehicle . After that the abductors had driven for TIME and taken the brothers to a windowless basement , which measured QUANTITY and was divided into smaller cells . The first applicant had been taken to a cell with a wooden door where he had been kept for TIME . In TIME of CARDINAL DATE he had been taken outside by CARDINAL armed servicemen in uniform , who had put a sack over his head and bound it with adhesive tape . Then they had pushed the applicant into a UAZ car , inside which was a cold corpse . The abductors had driven for TIME . Then they had stopped , dragged the applicant out of the car and forced him to his knees against a wall . The corpse had been placed next to the applicant . After that the abductors had shot the applicant in the head ; he had felt the pain but managed to pretend to be dead . Then the servicemen had placed an object between the applicant and the corpse and set it on fire , discussing whether it would be better to wait for the explosion or not . Next , the abductors had got back into the car and driven away . The applicant had pulled the sack off his head and seen that a pack of trotyl had been placed between him and the corpse of his brother , Valid . He had managed to extinguish the explosive device and throw it away . He had looked around and noticed that he had been taken to an abandoned building on the LOC of a former chemical plant in ORG . He had walked to the road , stopped a car and been driven to the Zavodskoy ROVD where he had informed the authorities about the events .

At DATE , on DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant whose second statement about the events of DATE DATE was similar to the CARDINAL given on DATE . In addition , he provided a more detailed description of the place of his detention and stated that the abductors had interrogated him and demanded that he confess to laying landmines ; that they had beaten him with flashlights and rifle butts ; that they had all been wearing uniforms and masks and had been armed with firearms and that CARDINAL of them had been armed with a military “ PERSON ” pistol ; that CARDINAL of the abductors had addressed CARDINAL of the men present during the interrogations in the basement as “ Colonel ” and that the latter had been wearing a specific reddish camouflage uniform with a peculiar blotted pattern and had been armed with a special sub - machine gun with a silencer ; that the CARDINAL men who had conducted the last interrogation of the applicant had not been wearing masks ; that CARDINAL of them was a large - built , fair - haired man with glasses , of TIME to forty - five years of age , whereas the other one had an NORP appearance , was about the same age and had a similar build to the first one ; that these CARDINAL men had taken the applicant to the LOC of the former chemical plant where they had shot him in the head with a sub - machine gun , but the bullet had just grazed his head and he had managed to pretend to be dead ; that the men had tried to blow up him and his brother 's body ; that after the abductors had left he had managed to stop an MAZ vehicle in which there had been CARDINAL men who had driven him to a security lodge located in a yard with many garages ; that QUANTITY armed men in camouflage uniforms who had been present there had called LOC via a portable radio and that TIME a UAZ car had arrived and taken the applicant to the Zavodskoy ROVD .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants ' relative , PERSON , whose statement concerning the events of DATE was similar to the ones given by the first and third applicants .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor 's office wrote to the ORG district department of ORG ( the ORG ) requesting information about the involvement of the first applicant in illegal armed groups . On DATE the ORG replied that they had no such information .

On DATE the ORG town prosecutor 's office joined the investigation in the criminal cases concerning the abduction and the killing . The joint criminal case was given the number CARDINAL .

On DATE the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the second applicant that her complaint about the killing of Valid Dzhabrailov had been examined and that on DATE the investigation had been resumed .

On DATE ORG conducted an expert evaluation of Valid PERSON 's body based on the crime scene examination report of CARDINAL DATE . According to the expert 's conclusions :

The following injuries were found on Valid PERSON 's body :

- numerous extensive bruises of the body and the extremities ;

- circular abrasions on the wrist and ankle joints ;

The injuries could have been caused by a number of impacts by a dull firm object ( objects ) DATE prior to the death ;

The corpse of PERSON was not examined ; therefore , it is not possible to make further conclusions ... ”

On DATE the Zavodskoy district prosecutor 's office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the applicants about it on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the PERSON district prosecutor 's office that the investigation into Valid PERSON 's murder had been ineffective , that there had been a lack of information about the progress of the investigation and that its suspension had been unjustified .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicants ' representatives wrote to the ORG district prosecutor 's office and the PERSON town prosecutor 's office . They described in detail the circumstances of Valid and PERSON abduction and their subsequent detention . In particular , they described the beatings and the ill - treatment to which the brothers had been subjected by the abductors and the abductors ' attempt to kill the first applicant . They further complained that the investigations into the abduction and the murder had been ineffective and that there had been a lack of information about the progress of the proceedings , and asked to be provided with copies of a number of procedural decisions .

On DATE the Zavodskoy district prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that on an unspecified date the investigation into the abduction had been joined with the investigation into the murder and the joint criminal case had been given the number CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicants ' representatives wrote to the Zavodskoy district prosecutor 's office complaining that the investigation in the joint criminal case had been ineffective and that there had been a lack of information about the steps taken by the investigators . In particular , they pointed out that they had received no information as to whether an expert evaluation of the evidence discovered at the crime scene or a forensic examination of Valid PERSON 's body had been carried out . They further asked that the first applicant be provided with access to the investigation file .

On DATE and DATE the decisions to suspend the investigation were overruled by the supervisory prosecutors for failure to take necessary investigative steps and the proceedings were resumed .

The applicants submitted that the authorities had failed to provide them with information concerning the investigation into the abduction and the subsequent killing of their close relative .

The Government submitted that the investigation in criminal case no . DATE was still in progress . The perpetrators of the abduction and the killing had not been identified , but the domestic authorities were taking steps to have the crime resolved . The applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation .

Despite specific requests by ORG , the Government did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case no . DATE . They submitted copies of several documents and stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW because the file contained personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings .

DATE . On DATE ( in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as DATE and DATE ) the first applicant complained to the PERSON district court of PERSON . He described in detail the events of DATE , including the beatings to which he had been subjected by the abductors , and complained that the investigation in criminal case no . DATE had been ineffective and that its suspension had been unjustified . The applicant sought a ruling obliging the authorities to resume the investigation and provide him with access to the investigation file .

On DATE the Zavodskoy district court rejected the complaint stating that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on DATE .

For a summary of relevant domestic law see PERSON and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c;Violation of Art. 6-3-e;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto

The applicant was born in DATE and at the time of lodging her application was serving a prison sentence in FAC .

On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from ORG , upon intelligence reports that she was a member of the illegal organisation ORG ( ORG Party ) . When she was arrested , the applicant was in possession of a fake identity card .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who noted that there was no sign of ill - treatment on her body . The applicant was subsequently taken to ORG for interrogation .

According to a form dated DATE which explained an arrested person 's rights , the applicant was reminded of her right to remain silent and was informed that she could request the assistance of a lawyer . The applicant marked this form with her fingerprint and stated that she did not want to be represented by a lawyer . Subsequently , a police officer prepared a further report , in which it was stated that although the applicant had been reminded of her right to legal assistance she had expressed her wish to defend herself in person . The applicant marked this report with her fingerprint as well .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the police in the absence of a lawyer . Before the questioning commenced the applicant was once again reminded of her right to have legal assistance , but she refused . In her police statement the applicant gave a detailed account of her involvement in the illegal organisation .

On DATE and DATE respectively , the applicant was examined by a medical doctor . The medical reports indicated that there was no sign of ill - treatment on her body .

On DATE the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor . During her questioning , the applicant was represented by a lawyer , PERSON from ORG , and she availed herself of her right to remain silent . The prosecutor questioned the applicant about the fake identity card that had been found on her during her arrest and the applicant accepted that she had been using a fake identity paper . The lawyer left the public prosecutor 's office without signing the applicant 's statement , stating that although the applicant had expressed her wish to remain silent , the prosecutor had continued asking questions .

DATE , the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge , again in the absence of a lawyer . Before the judge , the applicant retracted her police statement , stating that it had been taken under duress . When asked about her involvement in the illegal organisation , the applicant accepted that when she was a teenager she had joined the ORG and moved to GPE . She denied however having taken part in any terrorist activity . She stated that she had come back to GPE to benefit from the Reintegration of Offenders into LAW ( Law no . DATE ) . After the questioning was over , the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court , accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation , an offence under LAW ( Law no . ORG ) .

The proceedings commenced before ORG and during the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer . At the request of the applicant , ORG gave permission to the applicant to have the assistance of an interpreter . In its decision the firstinstance court noted that the applicant was capable of expressing herself in NORP ; however , in order not to hinder her right to defence and to comply with LAW , she was given leave to use an interpreter .

In her defence submissions before ORG , the applicant retracted the statements she had made during the preliminary investigation stage . She alleged that she had been forced to fingerprint her statement . According to the applicant , as she was illiterate , she could not understand the content of the document . She went on to deny the accusations against her and explained that when she was a teenager she had escaped to GPE for family reasons and that she had stayed in a refugee camp there .

On DATE , the applicant 's representative brought to the attention of ORG that the applicant , being of NORP origin , had a limited knowledge of NORP and that during her police custody she had not had the assistance of a lawyer or an interpreter .

During the trial , ORG took into consideration the police statements of CARDINAL people who had also been charged with membership of the ORG . These CARDINAL people testified that the applicant was a member of the ORG .

In the meantime , Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , abolished ORG . The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to DATE and DATE imprisonment . In convicting her , the court had regard to the applicant 's police statement and the statements of CARDINAL witnesses who had confirmed that the applicant was a member of the ORG .

The applicant appealed . In her appeal , she alleged that her right to legal assistance during police custody had been breached in so far as she had been denied the assistance of a lawyer .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG re - examined the case in the light of the new Criminal Procedure Code which entered into force in DATE . It found the applicant guilty as charged but reduced her sentence to DATE and DATE imprisonment .

A description of the relevant domestic law concerning the right of access to a lawyer may be found in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

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

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

In DATE the applicant ’s company concluded a contract to provide a sub - delivery of building operations within a large construction project carried out by the company S. The applicant ’s company provided all the contracted work in due time and quality , and invoiced the company S. , but payment did not follow .

On DATE the applicant ’s company brought an action against the company S. in ORG ( krajský obchodní soud ) .

On DATE the court issued a payment order against the company S. However , the latter filed a protest against the order which consequently did not become effective .

On DATE bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against the company S. The civil proceedings were therefore suspended ex lege .

On DATE the court received a proposal of the applicant ’s company to modify its action .

In appears that the civil proceedings instituted by the applicant ’s company against the company S. , which is now in liquidation , have not yet ended .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Javier Borrego Borrego;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova;Volodymyr Butkevych

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

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s son , PERSON , was allegedly detained in the village of GPE , GPE , by T. and ORG . ( relatives of PERSON ’s former wife ) , who extorted payment of a obligation of MONEY ( USD ) from PERSON by subjecting him to ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG of ORG was informed by a medical clinic , to which PERSON came for medical treatment after being released , that he was suffering from head injuries .

On DATE ORG Office of Odessa ( прокуратура Ілічевського району PERSON ) instituted criminal proceedings against T. and ORG . for unlawfully depriving PERSON of his liberty .

On DATE PERSON died .

On DATE the criminal case against T. and ORG . was closed for lack of evidence of crime . It was established that PERSON had borrowed money from T. and ORG . , and that his physical injuries had occurred as a result of an epileptic fit . Following a complaint by the applicant about this decision , on DATE ORG upheld it , finding no irregularities in the prosecutor ’s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the ORG of ORG , acting upon a protest lodged by ORG , quashed the decision of DATE because the applicant had not been informed about the court hearing of DATE and the court decision had not been reasoned . It remitted the case for a fresh examination to a different judge .

On DATE ORG remitted the case for further investigation . In particular , it found a number of deficiencies in the investigation of the case and ordered the prosecution to rectify them .

On DATE ORG again terminated the criminal proceedings against T. and ORG . for lack of evidence of crime .

On DATE the same prosecutor ’s office quashed its own decision and reinstituted criminal proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .

On DATE ORG terminated criminal proceedings against T. and Tr . for lack of evidence of crime . PERSON ’s former wife , her mother and PERSON testified that the applicant had borrowed money from ORG and that he had suffered from epilepsy .

On DATE the ORG of Odessa , on a complaint by the applicant , quashed the prosecutor ’s decision and remitted the case for further investigation .

On DATE the prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE granting the applicant victim status , as contrary to LAW .

On DATE the prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings for absence of evidence of crime and as time - barred .

On DATE ORG , on a complaint by the applicant , quashed the prosecutor ’s decision and remitted the case for further investigation . In particular , it ordered that the deficiencies in the investigation of the case be rectified . However , the court underlined that the applicant had no victim status in the case . On DATE and DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal and ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE the ORG , by a separate decision , ordered the prosecutor to inform the court about the investigative actions which the prosecution had taken in the case . It emphasised the failure of the prosecution to abide by the ORG previous decisions . On DATE , on a complaint by the applicant , the court remitted the case for a new investigation .

On DATE the NORP ORG upheld the decision of DATE , by which the case had been remitted for a new investigation .

DATE and DATE the criminal proceedings were several times terminated and subsequently reinstituted .

On DATE the case was transferred to the court in order to terminate proceedings as time - barred .

On DATE the ORG of Odessa refused to terminate the criminal proceedings against T. and ORG . and remitted the case for a new investigation . On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh judicial examination . The applicant was recognised by the court as her late son PERSON ’s representative .

On DATE PERSON ’s daughter was granted victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings as time - barred .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE since the applicant was not a party to the proceedings . On DATE and DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal quashed the decisions of CARDINAL May and DATE respectively and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant victim status and remitted the case to the prosecutor for an additional investigation .

On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings for the absence of the event of crime . On DATE ORG upheld this decision . The applicant appealed against it and the proceedings are still pending .

According to LAW , a person who has sustained pecuniary damage as a result of a crime can lodge a civil claim against an accused at any stage of the criminal proceedings before the beginning of the consideration of the case on the merits by a court .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides in so far as relevant :

“ A person who has suffered moral , physical or property damage from the crime can be recognised as an aggrieved party . ...

A citizen , who has been recognised as an aggrieved party from the crime , shall be entitled to give evidence in the case . An aggrieved party , or his or her representative , shall be entitled to : ... make requests ; to study all the materials of the case - file when the pre - trial investigation is completed , ... to lodge complaints against the actions of inquirer , investigator , prosecutor and court , ...

In cases where the crime caused the death of the victim , the rights provided for in this Article shall be conferred upon the deceased ’s next kin . ”


The applicants are NORP nationals . The first applicant was born in DATE , the second applicant was born in DATE . They both live in GPE .

They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

A.

s , may be summarised as follows :

The applicants are CARDINAL businessmen running a non - commercial partnership ( spółka cywilna ) . On an unspecified date in DATE a trustee of an estate of a certain insolvent company sued the applicants in ORG ( Commercial Division ) ( ORG ) for payment of a debt . On a further unspecified date the applicants filed a counter - claim .

On DATE the court held a hearing . During the hearing the applicants requested the court to fix a new hearing date for the end of the fruit season . The court granted their request and listed the next hearing for DATE , which was duly recorded in the minutes . Subsequently , during the same hearing , the applicants also requested the court to synchronise this hearing with a hearing before the same court , which was to be held in another case to which the applicants were parties .

On DATE the applicants were not present at the hearing as they considered that a summons should be served on them in order to confirm the hearing date . On DATE the court gave judgment ordering the applicants to pay the sum sought by the plaintiff . It rejected their counter - claim .

A copy of the judgment was not served on the applicants . They became aware of the judgment and its content as late as DATE . On DATE they filed an appeal and a request to grant them retrospective leave to appeal out of time . They submitted that , to their understanding , on DATE the court had not definitely fixed a new hearing date and therefore they had waited for a formal notification . The applicants also requested the court to rectify TIME of the hearing of DATE by inserting the following paragraph : “ The court revises its order concerning the date of the next hearing and it will fix the date ex officio , synchronising it with a hearing in a case no . ... . The court shall notify the parties of that date . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' request for leave to appeal out of time . The court found that TIME of the hearing had unambiguously indicated that the date of the next hearing had been fixed for DATE and the court had correctly considered that the applicants had been duly notified of the hearing . The court also took into account the fact that the plaintiff had had no doubts as to the date of the hearing in question . Moreover , the applicants had been represented by a lawyer and any potential misunderstanding could have not been considered as a plausible justification for their failure to appeal within the prescribed time - limit . The applicants appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG ( FAC ) upheld the contested decision . The court observed that a party to the proceedings was expected to act with all due diligence and if the applicants had had any doubts as to the definite hearing date , they could easily have verified them .

On DATE a single judge , sitting as ORG dismissed the applicants ' request to rectify TIME of the hearing . The court based its decision on the same grounds as those contained in the decision dismissing the applicants ' request for leave to appeal out of time . On DATE the applicants ' further appeal was dismissed by the same court , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges .

Subsequently , the applicants unsuccessfully requested the Minister of ORG for leave to file an extraordinary appeal . In letters of DATE and of CARDINAL DATE the Minister informed them that he would not examine the requests as both the proceedings concerning their request for leave to appeal out of time and the proceedings relating to their request for rectification of the minutes were still pending . In a letter of DATE the Minister informed them that he could not rule on their request for leave to file an extraordinary appeal in respect of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE because such a leave could not be granted in a commercial case after the expiry of DATE from the date on which the judgment had become final . In respect of the second decision , the Minister found that there was no basis for granting the applicants leave to file an extraordinary appeal .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure reads , insofar as relevant :

“ The parties and the [ other ] persons concerned shall be notified of a hearing date ; such notification is effected either by service of a summons or [ in case of an adjournment of a hearing ] by fixing a date during the hearing . A summons shall always be served on the party which has been absent at the hearing ... . ”

“ If the party to proceedings fails to comply with the prescribed time - limit without its fault , the court shall , on that party 's request , grant leave to appeal out of time ... . ”


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . ORG were initially represented by Mr PERSON , the former Representative of GPE at ORG , and subsequently by their Representative , PERSON .

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

The applicant was questioned by the police in the absence of his lawyer and confessed to the murder of his wife . Before the questioning he had made a handwritten statement that he did not need legal assistance .

On DATE ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant was assisted by legal - aid counsel .

The applicant appealed . In his grounds of appeal he advanced the defence of irresistible impulse and asked for a more lenient sentence . He also applied for free legal representation because he did not have sufficient means to retain counsel . He relied on LAW ( see below ) .

By letter of DATE , a deputy President of ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for free legal assistance because “ there were no right to free legal representation before appeal courts ” .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal but reduced the sentence to DATE imprisonment . The applicant was not assisted by counsel .

On DATE a deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application for supervisory review with the ORG of ORG . He submitted that ORG had infringed the applicant ’s right to free legal representation .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG granted the prosecutor ’s application , finding that the refusal to provide the applicant with free legal representation at the appeal hearing had violated the rights of the defence . It quashed the appeal judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination before ORG .

On DATE ORG held a new appeal hearing . It upheld the applicant ’s conviction but reduced the sentence to TIME years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant was released on parole .

LAW ( in force from DATE ) establishes that the investigator , the prosecutor or the court provide the suspect or the accused with legal aid counsel upon his / her request .


Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE ORG and Highways expropriated CARDINAL plots of land belonging to the applicant . A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to him .

Following the applicant 's request for increased compensation , on DATE ORG of First - instance awarded him additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) , plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court 's decision . In order to calculate the amount of increased compensation , the court consulted several experts .

The General Directorate of National Roads and NORP appealed against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

According to the order of ORG and GPE , the amount of GPE CARDINAL was paid to the applicant on DATE . The applicant claimed that he was paid on DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the Aka v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VI , pp . DATE , § § DATE ) .


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

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

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

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before the PERSON I ORG relating to his right to use an apartment .

On DATE CARDINAL of the defendants submitted their comments in relation to the claim .

The first hearing in the case was held on DATE . CARDINAL of the defendants failed to appear .

The President of ORG informed the applicant that the delay in the proceedings had been caused by the heavy workload of the judge dealing with the case .

All CARDINAL defendants failed to appear before the court on DATE . The court requested the police 's co - operation in serving the summons on CARDINAL of the defendants , CARDINAL of whom lived in GPE .

On DATE another hearing was held . None of the defendants appeared . The summons had been served on CARDINAL of them .

On DATE CARDINAL of the defendants filed written submissions with ORG .

On DATE ORG imposed a procedural fine on one of the defendants .

On DATE ORG asked for documentary evidence to be produced .

Hearings were held on DATE and on DATE .

On DATE the judge asked for further documentary evidence to be produced .

A hearing was held on DATE . On DATE the court inspected the apartment in issue .

On DATE the case was adjourned . The applicant was invited to specify his claim within DATE .

On DATE one of the defendants asked the court to grant him access to the apartment .

On DATE and on DATE the judge asked the applicant to inform the court whether an agreement had been reached between the parties . The applicant replied on DATE .

On DATE a hearing was held . Subsequently , a hearing was adjourned twice because the judge dealing with the case was on sick leave .

On DATE a hearing was held . Neither the applicant nor the defendants were present . It was not proved that the summons had been served on CARDINAL of the defendants . The court imposed a procedural fine on the lawyer of the other CARDINAL defendants . The lawyer was later exempted from payment of the fine .

On DATE the court notified the parties that the case had been assigned to a new judge and the hearing was adjourned . On DATE the court requested police co - operation in establishing the address of CARDINAL of the defendants .

On DATE the police informed the court that the defendant was living abroad at an unknown address .

On DATE a hearing was held at which the applicant and all CARDINAL defendants were present . The hearing was adjourned as further information was needed .

ORG delivered a judgment on DATE . It ordered CARDINAL of the defendants to let the applicant use the apartment in issue within DATE of the judgment becoming final .

On DATE ORG upheld the relevant part of the first - instance judgment . The decision in the case became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG found that the PERSON I ORG had violated the applicant 's right under LAW to a hearing within a reasonable time . The decision stated that the case was not complex and that the applicant had not contributed to the length of the proceedings . ORG had remained inactive from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . ORG considered it appropriate to award the applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) , payable by ORG within DATE . It also ordered ORG to proceed with the case without any further delay .

On DATE ORG found that the PERSON I ORG had violated LAW in the proceedings concerning the applicant 's action during the period subsequent to the delivery of the first decision on DATE .

ORG found that the case was not complex . While the applicant had not always replied to the court 's requests within the time - limit set , his behaviour as a whole had not resulted in any unjustified delays in the proceedings . As to the conduct of ORG , it had remained inactive from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( DATE ) as well as from DATE to DATE ( DATE ) . Despite the earlier order issued by ORG , ORG had not proceeded with the determination of the action in good time .

ORG awarded the applicant LAW as just satisfaction , which ORG was obliged to pay within DATE . When determining the amount of just satisfaction , ORG took into account , inter alia , that at a certain stage of the proceedings the applicant had not duly co - operated with ORG . It further ordered ORG to proceed with the case without any further delay and to reimburse the applicant 's legal costs in the constitutional proceedings .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country)

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first , the second and the third applicants live in GPE . The fourth applicant lives in GPE .

On DATE a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicants in respect of sexual procurement .

DATE the witnesses PERSON , Mr GPE , Ms R.M. and PERSON were questioned before a judge . Neither the applicants nor their lawyers participated in the questioning .

Mr Zh . PERSON stated that the fourth applicant had owed him money and therefore in DATE had offered him the sexual services of QUANTITY of the prostitutes controlled by him in lieu of payment . Mr Zh . PERSON had accepted . Later the fourth applicant had proposed to “ sell ” him the same woman for QUANTITY ( “ EUR ” ) .

Mr PERSON stated that in DATE he had seen QUANTITY women standing on a main road , had stopped his car and had asked them who was their boss . They had replied that it was the fourth applicant . Then Mr PERSON had called the fourth applicant , who was an acquaintance of his , and the fourth applicant had confirmed that the women were working for him .

PERSON stated that in DATE the fourth applicant had suggested that she work for him as a prostitute . She had accepted and the fourth applicant had bought her clothes and a bus ticket to GPE . There a woman named PERSON had met her and had found her a hotel . PERSON had been instructed to give the money she earned to PERSON who would forward it on to the first , the second and the fourth applicants through companies providing money transfer services . After some time the fourth applicant had sent PERSON to GPE , where the second applicant had met her . Later on , PERSON had returned to GPE and had prostituted herself along the main roads . DATE in DATE another procurer had stopped his car and had suggested that she work for him . She had told him that she had worked for the fourth applicant , and had given him the latter ’s phone number . He had called the fourth applicant and had then left .

PERSON stated that in DATE she had been contacted by the third and the fourth applicants who had suggested that she work for them as a prostitute . She had refused .

On an unspecified date ORG decided that the identity of CARDINAL other witnesses should be kept secret .

On DATE witnesses with ID nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were questioned before a judge . Before the interviews the judge verified the two witnesses’ identity .

Witness no . CARDINAL stated that she had dated the third applicant in the past . According to her statements , in DATE , while she was still under age , the third applicant took her to a hotel in the town of P. where he left her in a room with an unknown man . Then the man had told her that he had paid the third applicant to have sex with her . She spent TIME with him . On DATE witness no . CARDINAL had met the third applicant who had introduced her to the fourth applicant and a woman named NORP The third and the fourth applicants had suggested to witness no . CARDINAL and PERSON that they work for them as prostitutes . Witness no . DATE had accepted . Afterwards , on a number of occasions from DATE witness no . CARDINAL had been sent either by the third or the fourth applicants to meet their clients in different towns in GPE . In DATE witness no . CARDINAL had informed the third and the fourth applicants that she no longer wished to work for them .

Witness no . CARDINAL stated that in DATE she had already been engaged in prostitution when the fourth applicant had contacted her and had suggested that she work for him . She had agreed and the first , the second and the fourth applicants had made arrangements for her to travel to GPE , GPE and other countries in order to work as a prostitute . She had sent them money by using money transfer services or through third parties . After some time she had told them that she no longer wished to work for them .

NORP Immediately after the interviews the records of the ORG statements were presented to the applicants and their lawyers , and they were given the opportunity to put questions . The applicants and their lawyers stated in writing that they had acquainted themselves with the records and had no questions to put to the anonymous witnesses .

On DATE the witness with ID no . CARDINAL was questioned before a judge who verified her identity . The first , the second and the fourth applicants and the lawyers of the second and the fourth applicants participated in the interview but the ORG identity was protected . The third applicant and his lawyer , as well as the first applicant ’s lawyer , although duly summoned , were absent . Witness no . CARDINAL stated that in DATE she had accepted to work as a prostitute for the first , the second and the fourth applicants . They had arranged her travel to and stay in GPE , GPE and GPE , and she had sent money to individuals specified by them . After some time she had informed the fourth applicant that she no longer wished to work for him .

ORG invited the applicants and their lawyers to put questions to witness no . CARDINAL . The first , the second and the fourth applicants expressly stated in writing that they had no questions for her .

On DATE ORG ordered CARDINAL banks to inform the prosecution and the police authorities of the international money transfers ordered or received by certain individuals suspected of having been involved in the applicants’ sexual procurement activities . On DATE ORG issued a similar order in respect of CARDINAL other banks .

On an unknown date the applicants were accused of having induced into prostitution , procured or transported , individually or in complicity with each other , the CARDINAL anonymous witnesses and other women .

The applicants were also apparently subject to special means of surveillance for an unknown period of time .

On DATE ORG filed an indictment against the applicants . On an unknown date ORG decided that the public should be excluded from the trial .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the case . The anonymous witnesses and CARDINAL other witnesses did not appear . The court adjourned the hearing because of irregularities in the summoning of witnesses .

The next hearing was held on DATE . Witness no . CARDINAL was present , but the other CARDINAL anonymous witnesses and QUANTITY other witnesses did not appear . ORG adjourned the hearing because of irregularities in the summoning of witnesses .

On DATE ORG held a further hearing . The anonymous witnesses and CARDINAL other witnesses did not appear . ORG submitted written statements by CARDINAL of the anonymous witnesses that they were aware of the criminal proceedings and did not wish to attend the hearing . The applicants’ lawyers requested that the anonymous witnesses be found and questioned . ORG held that the anonymous witnesses had been the victims of the crimes of which the applicants had been accused , and therefore were free to decide whether they wished to attend the hearing . It questioned CARDINAL witnesses , who stated that they did not know or did not remember anything about the case . However , CARDINAL of the witnesses , Mr A.D. and Mr PERSON , admitted that they had received international money transfers , and Mr DATE specified that he had thus done the fourth applicant who had had no identity card a favour . ORG requested that the records of the ORG statements before the investigator be read out in court . However , the applicants did not give their consent and ORG dismissed that request .

The next hearing was held on DATE . The anonymous witnesses and several other witnesses were again absent . ORG submitted a police report attesting to the fact that one of the anonymous witnesses was abroad . ORG ordered that the anonymous witnesses and the other absent witnesses be found and brought before it . It further questioned CARDINAL witnesses , including the witness ORG After that it read out ORG testimony given before a judge at the pre - trial stage ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , finding that there was inconsistency in her statements . Another witness , PERSON . PERSON , stated that in DATE the fourth applicant had suggested that she work for him as a prostitute but she had refused .

The next hearing was held on DATE . ORG examined CARDINAL witness and admitted the evidence obtained from the use of special means of surveillance . The anonymous witnesses and several other witnesses once again did not appear . ORG stated that CARDINAL of the anonymous witnesses were abroad and that the third could not be found . The applicants’ lawyers insisted that the anonymous witnesses be found and questioned , and asserted that anonymity was not justified as the applicants knew the identity of those witnesses . ORG again ordered that the anonymous witnesses and the other missing witnesses be found and brought before it .

A further hearing was held on DATE . The anonymous witnesses and several other witnesses did not appear . A police report was submitted , stating that CARDINAL of the anonymous witnesses had left the country and the third one had not been found . The applicants’ lawyers insisted that the anonymous witnesses be found and questioned , and expressed doubts about the efforts of the prosecution authorities to ensure their presence at the trial . They further requested the cancellation of the witness protection measures , stating that the applicants were already aware of their identity . ORG found that the reasons for protecting the anonymous witnesses persisted . Noting that the anonymous witnesses were abroad , it read out their statements given at the pre - trial stage and admitted them . It did the same with the testimony of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , who appeared but stated that he did not remember anything about the case , and with the testimony of CARDINAL other witnesses who had been questioned before a judge at the pre - trial stage , including Mr PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY above ) , who could not be found and summoned . ORG also read out and admitted a number of documents , such as reports on international money transfers , police reports , and the information obtained through the secret surveillance of the applicants . The applicants’ lawyers unsuccessfully requested the recusal of the panel .

In a judgment of DATE ORG convicted the applicants , individually or in complicity with each other , of having induced or attempted to induce into prostitution , procured or transported the CARDINAL anonymous witnesses and the witnesses PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . PERSON was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine , Mr Vasilev – to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine , PERSON to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine , and Mr DATE to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine . ORG found that the ORG statements , including those of the anonymous witnesses , had been corroborated by the other evidence in the case , such as other witness statements , reports on international money transfers , reports from the border control authorities , and the information obtained through the secret surveillance of the applicants .

Following an appeal by the applicants , on DATE ORG held a hearing . It dismissed the applicants’ request that the anonymous witnesses be questioned , finding that this was not necessary .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the sentence of DATE . It fully endorsed the findings and conclusions of ORG .

The judgment of DATE was not subject to an appeal on points of law and became final .

On an unknown date the applicants requested the reopening of the criminal proceedings . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the request . It held that there had been no procedural breaches in the examination of the anonymous witnesses at the pre - trial stage , and that the applicants had been acquainted with the examination records and had explicitly stated that they had no questions to put to those witnesses . The court further emphasised that the anonymous ORG testimony had not been the sole or decisive evidence for the ORG conviction , but had been corroborated by a wealth of other evidence .

The second applicant was conditionally released from prison on DATE with a DATE supervision period , which expired , apparently , in DATE .

On DATE the NORP Regional Police Directorate prohibited him from leaving the country pending his rehabilitation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He appealed against the order , arguing that he had no employment in GPE and that the prohibition did not contribute to his social re - integration , was excessive and unnecessary . In a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court held that the prohibition had been imposed in compliance with the law , on the grounds of the second applicant ’s conviction for an offence subject to public prosecution , and that the ratio legis behind the prohibition was to prevent criminally active individuals from travelling abroad until they had proved that they had been reformed .

On an unknown date the fourth applicant was released from prison .

On DATE the NORP Regional Police Directorate prohibited him from leaving the country pending his rehabilitation . He appealed against the order , arguing that he had served his sentence , that there were no pending criminal proceedings against him , that his work as a football manager required frequent travel abroad and that he had to accompany his son for medical treatment abroad . In a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , holding that the assessment of the administrative body was not subject to judicial control . The court further held that the police authorities were not obliged to state any reasons for their decision to impose the ban .

Seeing that the travel bans were contingent on the judicial rehabilitation of the second and the fourth applicants , these measures apparently would have lasted at least until DATE for the second applicant and until an unknown date in DATE for the fourth applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , in DATE the Bulgarian Identity Papers Act was amended to the effect that convicted individuals who had served their sentences could no longer be prohibited from leaving the country . As a result , all travel bans imposed before that amendment ceased to have effect as from DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

Pursuant to Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the DATE Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ the DATE ORG ” ) , in force until DATE , measures for the protection of a witness had to be taken where there were sufficient grounds to believe that his testimony had caused or could have caused a real risk to his life , health or property or that of his close relatives or other individuals with whom he had very close ties . The decision that a witness should be protected had to specify the reasons for the protection and its type . The pretrial authorities and the court had a direct access to the protected witness and were obliged to verify his identity before the interview . A copy of the record of the interview with a protected witness had to be presented immediately to the accused and his lawyer who were entitled to put questions to the witness . The measures for protection could be discontinued at the request of the protected witness or where they were no longer necessary .

Pursuant to Article ORG of the DATE ORG , the charges and the conviction could not be based exclusively on the testimony of anonymous witnesses .

These provisions were superseded by ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE CCP , in force since DATE , which repeat their text almost verbatim .

In a binding interpretative decision ( тълк. реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL юли DATE г. на ORG по PERSON № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG ) of DATE the Plenary Meeting of ORG of ORG resolved a number of contentious issues relating to the construction of various provisions of LAW and the CARDINAL CCP on the prosecution of human trafficking . In point CARDINAL of the decision it held that the victim of a human trafficking offence could participate in the criminal proceedings as an anonymous witness . It held that the accused ’s defence rights could be subjected to reasonable restrictions , including by granting anonymity status to the testifying victim , in order to protect the latter ’s rights . However , a strict judicial control had to be exercised over the reasons for granting anonymity to testifying victims and over the procedures aimed at counterbalancing the restriction of the defence rights . According to ORG , in cases of anonymous witnesses the legislation provided CARDINAL procedural safeguards against the risk of manipulating the evidence in favour of the prosecution : ( CARDINAL ) the direct contact between the judge and the anonymous witness , which guaranteed , at the very least , that such a witness indeed existed ; ( CARDINAL ) the right of the accused and his lawyer to put questions to the anonymous witness immediately after his questioning ; and ( CARDINAL ) the limited probative importance the legislation attached to anonymous testimony ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court made reference to the case - law of this Court and concluded that the rules of fair trial would not be breached if the above procedures were strictly complied with , and notably , if the accused has been given the opportunity to put questions to the anonymous witness immediately after the questioning of the latter .

The possibility to interview a witness before a judge , in cases where it is likely that the witness would not be able to attend the trial due to illness , absence or other reasons , or where his testimony would be of “ exceptional importance for the establishment of objective truth ” , was provided for in Article CARDINALa of the CARDINAL ORG . The provision was inserted with effect from DATE with the aim of creating a possibility to use evidence collected at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , while at the same time conforming to the principle of immediacy of judicial proceedings . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL specifically provided that the investigator or prosecutor in charge of the interview had to ensure the witness ’s presence and “ a possibility ” for the accused and his counsel to take part in the interview .

Article CARDINAL of the DATE ORG allowed the statement of a witness given at the pre - trial stage to be read out in court if , inter alia , there was a considerable discrepancy between that statement and the ORG testimony given at the trial ; if the witness had not been found and summoned or was unable to appear in court ; or if he had appeared but had refused to testify at trial or had stated that he did not remember anything . If the accused was not represented , the court had to inform him that the testimony thus read out would be used for the determination of the criminal charges against him . Where the statement had been made before a judge , pursuant to LAW , there was no requirement for the court examining the case to obtain the consent of the parties ( LAW ) .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning travel bans on convicted individuals pending their rehabilitation are set out in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON , cited above , § § DATE .

Under LAW , a convicted individual may benefit from judicial rehabilitation . Such rehabilitation may be granted by the court which convicted him or her , if DATE have elapsed since the serving of the sentence , and the individual concerned has not committed another offence punishable with imprisonment , has demonstrated good behaviour and , in the case of offences committed with intent , has made good any damage done . The latter requirement may be disregarded by the court if there is good reason ( LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE State and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , as in force since DATE , provides as follows :

“ The ORG and the municipalities shall be liable for damage caused to individuals and legal persons by unlawful decisions , actions or omissions by their organs and officials , committed in the course of or in connection with the performance of administrative action . ”

Pursuant to the consistent case - law of the domestic courts , for the impugned conduct to be considered unlawful , it must be in breach of national law .


NORP In issue No . CARDINAL of a newspaper “ ORG ” , of which the applicant was an editor - in - chief , a list of informants of the NORP secret police was published . This list had been submitted to ORG ( PERSON ) in DATE by the Minister of ORG , following a resolution of the ORG . The list was originally meant to remain strictly confidential , but its contents were subsequently immediately leaked to the public . In the same issue of the newspaper , apart from the list , the following text , entitled “ Deleted at the Last Minute ” ( “ Wykreśleni w ostatniej chwili ” ) , was published : “ [ The Minister of ORG ] was until TIME verifying data which he had to submit to ORG , pursuant to its resolution . TIME before the list was submitted to [ ORG ] he had deleted several names from the list , for lack of conclusive evidence . It transpires from our information that these names were : [ ... ] ” .The names of CARDINAL well - known politicians followed .

NORP In issue No . CARDINAL of the same newspaper , a text entitled “ The List of Informants - a Supplement ” ( “ ORG konfidentów - uzupełnienie ” ) was published , which read as follows : “ As a result of a misunderstanding , we did not include the following name in the list of persons deleted at TIME from the Minister of ORG 's document , which was published in issue No . CARDINAL of ORG : S.N , and belonging to a category of ORG ( an informant ) , with a pseudonym [ ... , ] who had been recruited [ by the secret police ] during his stay in prison . ” ( “ Z wydrukowanej w nr CARDINAL PERSON listy < PERSON w ostatniej chwili > wypadło nam w wyniku nieporozumienia nazwisko ORG , kategoria ORG , kryptonim [ ... ] , który został zwerbowany do współpracy w więzieniu . ” )

On DATE PERSON , who was also a candidate for ORG in elections scheduled for DATE , brought a court action against the applicant before ORG in accordance with LAW . He submitted that the newspaper of which the applicant was an editor - in - chief had published information that he had been an informant of the secret police of the former communist regime . He contended that this was false . He demanded that the applicant publicly revoke this statement and apologise for it by placing paid announcements in numerous newspapers .

On DATE ORG declared itself incompetent to deal with the matter and transmitted the case to ORG .

On DATE the ORG decided that the case should be considered in ordinary contentious proceedings applicable to claims for protection of reputation under LAW and transmitted the case to ORG . Upon appeal , ORG on DATE quashed this decision as it considered that the case should be dealt with by ORG in special proceedings governed by LAW .

On DATE the ORG summoned the applicant by fax sent to his work address to attend a court hearing scheduled for DATE . On DATE the applicant 's lawyer sent a letter to the court in which he protested against the despatch of the summons to the applicant 's place of work instead of to his private address and informed the court that the applicant should be considered as not having been duly summoned . He requested that the hearing be adjourned .

At the hearing on DATE the ORG summoned the applicant to adduce evidence to show that the information concerning the plaintiff PERSON and his alleged involvement with the communist secret police was true .

On DATE the applicant submitted a power of attorney in favour of his representative and requested that the case be pursued by way of ordinary contentious proceedings as the proceedings provided for by LAW had not led to a decision on the merits within DATE period stipulated in this LAW . He requested the court to call as witnesses the former and current Ministers of Internal Affairs as well as PERSON , a well - known politician , and to request ORG to submit various documents in evidence .

On DATE the ORG summoned the applicant and his lawyer by notifications sent by fax to their respective work and office addresses to the hearing fixed for DATE .

At the hearing on DATE before ORG the applicant 's lawyer was present , but the applicant was not . The court pronounced its decision on DATE . It upheld the plaintiff 's claim and ordered the applicant to publicly revoke his statements by placing relevant announcements in numerous newspapers .

In reaching this decision , ORG considered that in the proceedings in question the time - limits for serving summonses set out in LAW did not apply . The applicant 's lawyer had been aware that the proceedings had been instituted since DATE ; he had been given a power of attorney on CARDINAL DATE and had submitted the request to produce evidence on DATE . Thus , he had had enough time to prepare his arguments . The court indicated that it had requested ORG to produce the documents requested by the applicant . On DATE the Ministry had refused to do so as those documents were subject to official secrecy and could only be produced in court in criminal proceedings , in accordance with ORG . The court further observed that it could not call the witnesses proposed by the applicant ; they could only have given evidence as to whether PERSON had been put on the list of informants prepared by ORG , but not as to whether ORG had in fact been an informant . Moreover , in view of the serious nature of the allegations advanced against ORG by the applicant 's newspaper , in the absence of any documentary evidence these allegations could not have been considered proved , even if they had been confirmed by the witnesses . Thus , as the applicant had not adduced any other evidence to prove that the information concerning PERSON was true , the court found against him .

The applicant appealed against this decision , invoking , inter alia , LAW . He contended that the proceedings were null and void as neither the applicant nor his lawyer had been summoned to the hearing on DATE with CARDINAL ' notice , as provided for by LAW of LAW . Furthermore , the applicant 's interests could not be protected properly as he did not have sufficient time to prepare his arguments between the date of receipt of the summons and the date of the hearing . The applicant further argued that , as all his requests to call witnesses and evidence had been refused , he had been denied a reasonable opportunity to prove the facts essential for the merits of the decision .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal . The court considered that the complaint concerning the summons was unfounded . Both the applicant and his lawyer had been summoned DATE before the hearing , which was justified , given the special nature of the proceedings under LAW . The court recalled that , although this provision provided for such cases to be decided within TIME , failure to do so did not oblige the court to deal with the case according to the normal procedures for contentious civil proceedings laid down in the provisions of LAW . Moreover , the applicant , being aware of the special nature of the proceedings , should have expected that he might be summoned from DATE to the next and should have taken effective measures to ensure that the summons reached him in time . These considerations were especially relevant as the applicant was represented by a lawyer who was under a professional obligation to take appropriate measures to this end . In any event , the lawyer received the summons in time to appear at the hearing , even though he contended , unconvincingly , that he had learned about the date of the hearing from a journalist .

As to the merits , the court noted that the lower court had requested the Ministry to submit documents requested by the applicant . However , this request had been refused . In the light of LAW , the refusal had to be considered lawful . Moreover , the very fact that an individual 's name had been included in the list prepared by ORG could not be deemed proof that this person had in fact been an informant . The veracity of information contained in the list had been repeatedly called into question both by interested parties and , more widely , in numerous press articles . It had been emphasised that the list had been prepared and used as a weapon in a political battle , intended to discredit the persons concerned . Therefore , the veracity of a claim that a particular person had been a police informant could not possibly be established solely on the basis of the list itself and without prior verification of the list and , in particular , without some legally established means whereby the rights of persons branded as police informants could be defended . The court accordingly considered that the burden of proof lay with the defendant , who had failed to demonstrate that , at the time of the publication of the information at issue , he had possessed sufficient evidence that ORG had been an informant as alleged .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provided that a candidate in parliamentary elections could bring a court action seeking rectification of information published about him / her during the election campaign and claiming compensation . The court was required to decide the case within TIME . The court could order the publisher of the information to rectify the information immediately and to apologise publicly to the plaintiff , if the information proved to be false or inaccurate . The court could order the defendant to pay compensation to the plaintiff . The provisions of LAW were applicable to proceedings brought before the courts on the basis of this provision .

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that the person who relies on a fact relevant to his or her case bears the burden of proving that fact . Pursuant to LAW , the parties to civil proceedings are under an obligation to adduce evidence to establish the facts relevant to their claim . Under LAW , evidence can be taken as to the facts which are of relevance for the outcome of the case .

As regards the burden of proof , the case - law of the NORP courts in proceedings instituted on the basis of LAW was inconsistent . In certain cases the courts held that an analysis of LAW read together with the general principle of LAW led to the conclusion that the burden of proof , in cases in which the information concerning a candidate was harmful to his or her good reputation , lay on the person who had published the information in question . The courts argued that in such cases the approach taken in LAW should be followed , in that there was a presumption that attacks on the personal rights of the plaintiff were unlawful . Consequently , it fell to the defendant to prove their lawfulness , in particular by pointing out that the information published about the plaintiff , and which was deemed to be harmful to him or her , was true . Thus the plaintiff was exempted from the obligation to demonstrate that the allegations against him were untrue ( ORG , I ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE CARDINAL ; ORG , I Acz DATE of CARDINAL ) .

In another decision , ORG held that the plaintiff in Article CARDINAL proceedings could not be required to adduce evidence in order to prove that something had not occurred ( ORG , I Acz CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE of CARDINAL ) . In a further case in which the court ordered the defendant to prove that statements about the candidate were true , the court emphasised that , in conformity with the principle ei incumbit probatio qui dicit , non qui negat , it was not possible to require the plaintiff to produce evidence to prove that certain facts had not occurred ( ORG , Acz CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Dec. CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

On the other hand , in certain decisions given on the basis of LAW , the courts held that that provision in conjunction with LAW required the plaintiff to prove that the statements contained in the contested publications were untrue ( ORG , PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG I Acz DATE ) .

The applicant lodged his application with the ORG , alleging a violation of LAW .

The Commission declared the application partly admissible on CARDINAL DATE . In its report of CARDINAL DATE ( former LAW ) it expressed the opinion , by QUANTITY votes to one , that there had been no violation of LAW on account of the fact that the court refused to take all evidence proposed by the applicant .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in custody . He was suspected of having committed offences of kidnapping and acting in an organisation of a criminal character .

On an unknown date the ORG ordered that the applicant be detained until DATE . The court based its detention order on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and on the severity of the likely penalty , which gave rise to a fear that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings . The court also stressed his relapse into crime .

Subsequent decisions as to the extension of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention were taken on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

In all the above - mentioned decisions the courts mainly relied on the same grounds for detention as those given for the making of the first detention order . In addition , they indicated the need to conduct further investigations and the probable collusion of the accused .

On many occasions the applicant unsuccessfully requested his release from detention and , also unsuccessfully , appealed against decisions extending his pre - trial detention .

On DATE a bill of indictment was filed against the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused . The applicant was charged with kidnapping and acting in an organisation of a criminal character .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was serving a prison sentence in respect of another conviction .

On DATE the first hearing was held before ORG . Hearings scheduled for CARDINAL and DATE were postponed due to the necessity of replacing one of the judges .

On DATE a new judge was assigned to the case .

Subsequent hearings were held on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , QUANTITY DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention ended on DATE .

The proceedings are pending before the first - instance court .

On DATE the ORG ordered that the applicant be detained for DATE on suspicion of having committed armed robbery and having acted in an organisation of a criminal character . The court based its detention order on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and on the severity of the likely penalty , which gave rise to a fear that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings .

The applicant ’s detention was extended on the following dates : DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

NORP In all the above - mentioned decisions the courts mainly relied on the same grounds for detention as those given for the making of the first detention order . In some of the decisions , the courts also indicated the need to conduct further investigations .

On DATE a bill of indictment was filed against the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused . The applicant was charged with armed robbery and acting in an organisation of a criminal character .

The first hearing , scheduled for DATE , was cancelled due to a judge ’s illness .

NORP Subsequent hearings were held on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE . In DATE and DATE altogether CARDINAL hearings were held . Hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were cancelled due to a judge ’s illness . Subsequently , hearings were held on CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention .

On DATE the applicant ’s complaint lodged under the Law of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time was rejected on formal grounds .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of the offences and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . On DATE the applicant appealed .

The proceedings are pending before ORG .

For a description of the relevant domestic law , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , judgment of DATE .

On DATE the Law of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) entered into force ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings . A party to pending proceedings may ask for the acceleration of those proceedings and/or just satisfaction for their unreasonable length under LAW read in conjunction with section CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) adopted a resolution ( no . III SPP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which it ruled that while LAW produced legal effects as from the date of its entry into force ( DATE ) , its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date , but only when they had not yet been remedied .


The applicant is a ORG of a suburb of GPE . It is represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

In DATE , ORG constructed CARDINAL tennis courts , a warehouse , a dressing - room and a small bar in an area owned by it . In DATE , it enlarged the site and transferred it to ORG .

By decision no . DATE which altered the development plan in this area , ORG invited the Pireus Prefecture to designate the area as a green and sports area . The Pireus Prefecture did so by decision no . DATE of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , a number of residents of PERSON applied to ORG for judicial review of decisions GPE and DATE . The application was directed against ORG , Town Planning and Public Works . On DATE , ORG intervened in the proceedings in favour of the Minister . The hearing took place on DATE and the judgment delivered on DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13+6-1;Violation of P1-1

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

NORP In DATE the applicant concluded a contract with ORG ( a private insurance company incorporated in GPE ) whereby she paid an insurance premium in exchange for a fixed annuity of CARDINAL GPE lei ( MDL ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) in addition to her pension ( “ annuity ” ) . She started receiving her annuity in DATE . In DATE ORG stopped paying it , invoking a change in the interest rate of ORG .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against ASITO , seeking the payment of the annuity to date and requiring the company to abide by the contract .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to pay her the pension arrears in the amount of MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) . ASITO lodged an appeal with ORG , which dismissed it on DATE . ASITO did not appeal and the judgment became final and enforceable .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG seeking enforcement of the judgment in her favour . The latter did not reply , but sent the enforcement warrant to a Bailiff only on DATE .

In the meantime , since in its judgment of DATE ORG had ruled only on the payment of the pension arrears , on DATE it issued an additional judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to abide by the contract and to resume the DATE payments . That judgment became final .

DATE the applicant lodged other complaints about the non - enforcement of the judgments in her favour with ORG , the Bailiff , ORG and ORG . On DATE ORG requested ORG to take all necessary steps , including the sanctioning of the persons responsible , in order to enforce the judgments in favour of the applicant and to inform her about the outcome of the enforcement proceedings . The applicant did not receive any further reply ; nor were any sanctions imposed on the debtor company or its employees .

The final judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the additional judgment of CARDINAL DATE were enforced on DATE .

The relevant domestic law was set out in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIII ( extracts ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the Court by Mrs Bedia ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

The applicant ’s husband , PERSON , was a member of parliament ( MP ) for ORG ( hereinafter referred to as the DEP ) at the time of the event .

On DATE unknown persons shot the brothers of the DEP ’s vice president , both MPs for the same party , in Batman . CARDINAL of them died and the other was injured .

On DATE the applicant ’s husband , PERSON , and a member of the DEP ’s ORG in Batman , who had been sent to the region to investigate these murders , were also shot dead . ORG initiated criminal proceedings against CARDINAL suspects under LAW . He subsequently declined jurisdiction in the matter and transferred the investigation file to the prosecutor of ORG , who brought criminal proceedings against the suspects under LAW , charging them with an “ attempt to undermine the constitutional order of the ORG ” in relation to the death of the applicant ’s husband .

ORG acquitted CARDINAL of the suspects on CARDINAL DATE and the remaining CARDINAL on DATE .

On DATE , PERSON applied for and obtained a copy of the court ’s decision to acquit the alleged perpetrators .

On an unspecified date , the former Minister of ORG claimed this murder to have been carried out by a terrorist organisation , namely the ORG . At DATE , the so - called GPE report was produced at the request of the Prime Minister , by Mr Kutlu Savaş , the Vice - President of ORG of ORG . It was stated on DATE of this report that “ the murder of ORG had been plotted and carried out in accomplice by PERSON , GPE , İ. MONEY , and PERSON and that following this event PERSON had signed a letter in relation to the murder ” . This report was not deemed sufficient evidence by the public prosecutors to initiate criminal proceedings against the identified perpetrators .

In NORP law – for the purposes of preliminary investigations by prosecutors – criminal acts are divided into CARDINAL categories ; firstly those in respect of which a victim must inform the prosecutor so that an investigation can be started by the latter , and secondly , those in respect of which the victim is not required to make a complaint in order for an investigation to be started by the prosecutor ( LAW , hereinafter the ORG ) . Threat is classified as CARDINAL of the crimes in the first category . Murder is classified as one of the crimes in the second category ; however , this does not prevent relatives of victims from lodging criminal complaints with the authorities .

A public prosecutor who is informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to the suspicion that an offence has been committed is obliged to investigate the facts by conducting the necessary inquiries to identify the perpetrators ( LAW ) . The public prosecutor may institute criminal proceedings if he or she decides that the evidence justifies the indictment of a suspect ( LAW ORG ) . If it appears that the evidence against a suspect is insufficient to justify the institution of criminal proceedings , the public prosecutor may close the investigation in respect of that person . However , the public prosecutor may decide not to prosecute if the evidence is clearly insufficient .

Right to intervene in the public prosecution .

Pursuant to LAW ORG , any person who is injured by the offence may , at any phase of the investigation , intervene in the public prosecution . Those so intervening in public prosecution proceedings may also submit their personal claims for adjudication .