Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

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

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

NORP The applicant is handicapped and wheelchair - bound . Since DATE he has been living , at his request and for payment , in an establishment providing social services ( Dom sociálnych služieb – “ the care home ” ) .

DATE , following an agreement with the director of the care home , the applicant himself paid for a person to prepare vegetarian food for him instead of buying the lunches which the home provided to residents and which did not include NORP meals .

In DATE a new director was appointed who informed the applicant that the care home was obliged to provide CARDINAL meals a day to him .

In DATE the applicant concluded several consecutive agreements with the home in which he undertook to buy meals . As he had not paid the sums due for the period from DATE , the home sued the applicant . The ORG granted the action on DATE , and ORG upheld that decision on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant signed an agreement in which he undertook to buy CARDINAL meals a day in the care home , namely lunch and an afternoon snack . On DATE , on the basis of that agreement the care home determined the sum which the applicant had to pay for his board . ORG upheld that decision .

According to the applicant , the director had verbally promised to ensure that vegetarian food was made available to him with reference to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Regulation no . DATE . Since NORP meals were not made available , the applicant informed the director on DATE that he no longer wished to receive lunches in the establishment .

An addendum to the internal rules of the care home of DATE specified that a resident could refuse to receive food for serious reasons only and subject to the approval of the director . Another addendum to the internal rules of CARDINAL DATE indicated the following as relevant grounds for not receiving food for a period exceeding DATE : absence from the home , placement in a hospital , the death or illness of a member of the resident ’s family , attending cultural or sports events , or any other serious ground accepted by the director .

On DATE the care home sued the applicant as he had not paid the sum due for meals in the period from DATE . On DATE the ORG granted the claim .

In the meantime , on DATE a physician issued a certificate confirming that the applicant suffered from chronic dyspepsia requiring protective foods .

NORP In decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE the care home re - determined the sums due from the applicant for the services it provided , including meals . On DATE and DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeals against those decisions , which thus became final . In the decision of DATE ORG held that buying meals from other sources under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Regulation no . DATE was only possible where such sources were duly authorised to offer catering services . However , that condition was not met in the applicant ’s case .

On DATE the social services department of ORG informed the applicant that NORP food would be made available in his care home from DATE .

On DATE the care home and the applicant concluded a new agreement under which the latter undertook to buy breakfast and lunch in the establishment . As the applicant failed to pay the sum due , the care home sued him before the ORG on DATE . On DATE that court approved a settlement under which the applicant undertook to pay the sum in issue in DATE instalments .

In DATE sets of execution proceedings were brought with a view to enforcing the sums which the courts had ordered the applicant to pay to the care home .

On CARDINAL DATE the establishment sued the applicant for unpaid meals for the period from DATE .

The applicant argued that he had revoked the agreement on buying food as the lunches served in the care home did not correspond to his health needs and beliefs .

On DATE the ORG granted the above action and ordered the applicant to pay the plaintiff CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) in DATE instalments of SKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The court established that , under the above agreement signed on DATE , the applicant had undertaken to buy CARDINAL meals a day in the care home , namely lunch and an afternoon snack . Those decisions had been upheld by ORG and had become final . During the period DATE the applicant had not paid the sum due for meals , namely SKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

The court further noted that under the relevant regulation persons permanently living in a social care establishment were to be provided with CARDINAL meals a day , CARDINAL of which had to be lunch . The applicant had thus been obliged to buy such meals . His own decision to stop buying lunches during the period in issue had not been a reason for excusing the applicant from the obligation to pay the costs of his stay in the establishment , including the meals which the care home had been obliged to provide and which the applicant had been obliged to receive . ORG further held that the applicant had not shown that his state of health obliged him to eat exclusively vegetarian food .

The applicant appealed . He argued that ORG judgment was discriminatory and breached his human rights as he had been obliged to pay for meals which he had not wished to receive and which had not corresponded to his health needs and beliefs .

NORP The plaintiff maintained that , in accordance with the statutory provisions in force , serving meals was a part of the comprehensive care services which were provided to the applicant . The applicant had undertaken to pay for the CARDINAL meals which the law obliged him to buy . The food offered respected the principles of healthy nutrition and it was prepared with due regard to the age and state of health of the residents . Upon medical recommendation the care home provided , as required by the law , special food which corresponded to diabetic , high - protein or high - calorie diets . The applicant ’s preference for NORP food was therefore a lifestyle choice and did not constitute special dietary needs .

On DATE the ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . It noted that ORG , on DATE , had approved the decision delivered on CARDINAL September DATE by the care home in which the applicant lived . Those decisions had determined the amount which the applicant was liable to pay for staying in the care home . It included the price of CARDINAL meals a day which the applicant was obliged to buy in accordance with LAW . The plaintiff had been obliged to prepare the meals , including lunch , for the applicant as he was receiving permanent care in the establishment and his stay there had not been interrupted during the relevant period . The refusal by the applicant to receive the meals for the above - mentioned reasons was not a relevant ground , within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of Regulation no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , for absolving him from the obligation to pay the sum due .

Finally , ORG noted that the applicant had not submitted any evidence indicating that his state of health was such that he needed to eat exclusively vegetarian food .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He complained that in the proceedings leading to ORG judgment of DATE he had been obliged to pay for meals which he did not wish to buy and which were not suitable from the point of view of his health , beliefs and religion . The applicant alleged a breach of several constitutional provisions , including the right to respect for CARDINAL ’s private life , the right to own property and the prohibition of discrimination .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . It held that the ordinary courts involved had addressed and determined the relevant aspects of the case . ORG could not deal with the case on the mere ground that the applicant disagreed with ORG conclusion .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of LAW DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) , social service establishments must provide indispensable welfare assistance to residents , which includes meals , accommodation and care .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that meals served in such homes have to comply with the requirements of a healthy diet and take into account the age and state of health of the residents .

Paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL obliges persons who receive care DATE round or on a DATE basis to receive CARDINAL meals a day in the establishment .

Pursuant to section ORG ) , services provided in social service establishments must be paid for unless the law provides otherwise .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) provides that food , accommodation and care is to be paid for in social service homes with the exception of homes for children .

Regulation no . DATE issued by ORG and Family provides in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) that care homes can obtain meals for persons in their care from different legal or natural persons authorised to provide catering services on the basis of a written agreement specifying the conditions and price .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of that Regulation , where a care home provides social services to a person all DATE round or on a DATE basis , that person has to be provided with all meals or , as a minimum , CARDINAL meals a day , CARDINAL of which must be lunch .

Under section CARDINAL ) , where a person has informed the social service establishment in a timely manner that he does not wish to receive meals , the sum corresponding to such meals must be restored to him or her by DATE .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON Meyer - Dulheuer , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

DATE , and from DATE until DATE , the applicant taught NORP , LANGUAGE and , from DATE onwards civic education ( Staatsbürgerkunde ) in secondary schools , first in GPE ( “ the GPE ” ) , and as from DATE in GPE ( FRG ) . DATE and DATE he also served as honorary secretary ( ehrenamtlicher PERSON ) of the NORP Socialist Unity Party ( PERSON the SED ” ) at his school .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant , instead of teaching at school , was employed on a full - time basis in the executive committee of the district administration of the ORG ( hauptamtlicher politischer ORG der Kreisleitung der SED ) .

After the NORP reunification the applicant became a teacher in the public service of GPE . Subsequent to the publication of a book containing statements of a former pupil of the applicant , alleging that the latter , in his capacity as SED representative , had asked him to attend a church conference on ecology about which he had later been interrogated by an official of the district council , the applicant was interviewed on this incident by the district councillor for education and culture ( FAC of GPE - Friedrichshain on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant confirmed that he had asked his pupil , a secretary of the ORG ’s youth organisation ( ORG ) , to attend the conference , yet without being aware of any conspiratorial context or a later interrogation of the pupil . As a consequence of the interview , the district councillor decided to assign the applicant to another school within ORG and reserved the right to take further steps .

In a letter to the district councillor , dated DATE , the applicant stated that the participation of his former pupil in the church conference had occurred on a voluntary basis without any abuse of the teacher - student relationship . The aim of this action had been to confront the pupil with opinions contrary to his own . In any event , he had not been aware of any such purpose as the observation of political opponents .

On DATE the applicant signed a new contract with the State of GPE adjusting the terms of his employment to the new political situation in GPE . On DATE , the Special Commissioner of the Government for « person - related ORG documents of the former ORG of the GPE ( GPE die personenbezogenen Unterlagen des ehemaligen ORG ) , acting on a request by ORG , informed the authorities that the applicant had been registered as contact person since DATE in files of ORG ( ORG für Staatssicherheit , “ the MSS ” ) . After having signed a declaration of confidentiality , he had been interviewed on CARDINAL occasions about certain persons by ORG - officials . However , the applicant had not prepared any reports on individuals . In DATE the ORG had decided to cease cooperation with the applicant after only a few meetings due to a lack of willingness to cooperate on his part .

On DATE the applicant was heard once again by the district council ( PERSON ) of GPE - Friedrichshain in order to clarify why , in an official questionnaire handed out to him in DATE , he had replied “ no ” to the questions whether he had carried out any activity for the ORG and whether he had signed a declaration to that effect . The applicant stated that his answers had been correct since his contacts with the ORG had led to nothing . Moreover , he had never signed a declaration that he had not worked for the ORG but merely a declaration of confidentiality . An offer by the district council to cancel his contract of employment by means of a friendly settlement was rejected by the applicant .

On DATE , the applicant was suspended from his teaching functions . After the main staff council for public employees ( NORP ) had indicated that it would only accept an “ ordinary dismissal ” ( ordentliche PERSON ) within the delays prescribed by law , the applicant was served with a notice of termination of his employment contract dated DATE , and taking effect on DATE . The dismissal was based on ORG , Topic A , section III , no CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , of GPE I to LAW ( see relevant domestic law and practice below ) . The notice of termination stated as the reason for the dismissal that the public employer could not reasonably be expected to continue the applicant ’s employment . Firstly , the applicant had failed to rebut the charge that he had been active for the ORG . Moreover , as a full - time member of the executive committee of the district administration of the ORG , and an active supporter of and collaborator with the former NORP CARDINAL - party system , he could not be considered suited to uphold the free democratic constitutional system in front of his pupils . This was also reflected by the fact that he had used CARDINAL pupil for spying on political opponents and by the lack of awareness of guilt he had shown during the interview of DATE . Finally , the applicant had failed to indicate his contacts with the ORG in the official questionnaire .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( GPE ) held that the applicant ’s employment had not been terminated by the dismissal of CARDINAL DATE , in the absence of any valid grounds for dismissal . In particular , the applicant could not be considered unsuited to teach NORP and NORP because of his former functions within the SED . Furthermore , the State of GPE had forfeited its right to terminate the applicant ’s employment after it had continued his employment following the first interview with the applicant in DATE . The applicant had been justified in denying any activity for the ORG in the official questionnaire because the attempt by the ORG to make him cooperate had remained unsuccessful .

By a judgment of DATE ORG of Berlin ( GPE ) reversed the judgment of ORG . Although the ORG held that the applicant had not cooperated with the ORG , and that his answers in the official questionnaire were correct since the inquiry was not whether he had had contact with the ORG but whether he had carried out activities for it , it found the dismissal to be justified on account of the applicant ’s unsuitability to continue teaching . It held that his full - time employment as an ORG official from DATE to DATE gave rise to doubts whether he was in a position to dispense the values of the German Basic Law ( Grundgesetz ) to his pupils . Similarly , his honorary function as an ORG representative at his school from DATE and again from DATE reflected his identification with the political system of the GPE . Moreover , the fact that the applicant had asked CARDINAL of his pupils , on the orders of the executive committee of the district administration of the SED , to attend a church conference in the knowledge that the pupil would subsequently be interrogated about that conference by the NORP authorities , constituted an abuse of the teacher - pupil relationship for the purpose of spying on political opponents . The ORG considered this behaviour to be incompatible with the educational aims of freedom of opinion and tolerance . The applicant ’s argument that his intention had been to confront the pupil with opinions opposite to his own was , in the ORG ’s view , a mere excuse . Furthermore , the ORG found that the public employer had not forfeited the right to dismiss the applicant after it had assigned him to another school because this measure was in the nature of a first and by no means final reaction to the interview with the applicant held on DATE . At that time the applicant had been explicitly informed that further steps could be taken against him and he could have expected , according to the practice in similar cases , a further consultation of the Special Commissioner of the Government in the matter . Similarly , the renewal of his contract in DATE was to be seen in the general context of readjusting the terms of employment of former public servants of the GPE and thus was without prejudice to the process of reviewing the personal involvement of such ORG employees with the political system of the GPE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG ( Bundesarbeitsgericht ) held that the termination of the applicant ’s employment was effective as of DATE and dismissed the remainder of his appeal against ORG judgment of DATE . It found that the applicant lacked the personal aptitude required for public service . Contrary to the case where a teacher had been dismissed for membership of ORG , which dismissal had been found to be in violation of LAW ( Vogt v. GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , here the applicant ’s dismissal was not only based on his ORG membership and his political beliefs but on his professional and honorary functions within that party , which reflected his especially strong identification with the SED system and indicated his unfitness to uphold the free democratic constitutional system in front of his pupils . Indeed , as party secretary , it was his duty to implement the ideological aims of the SED at school ( “ die ideologische ORG der Ziele der SED in PERSON ” ) . His unsuitability was also shown by the fact that he had asked a pupil to spy on meetings of ideological opponents .

By a decision of DATE ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) declined to entertain the applicant ’s constitutional complaint against the above judgments .

Paragraphs DATE , Topic A , LAW , no . CARDINAL , of GPE I to the German LAW provide that civil servants of the GPE are integrated into the public service of the ORG by substituting in the existing work relations the Federal authorities and ORG for the authorities of the GPE . As civil servants of the GPE were part of an institution that did not satisfy the criteria of a ORG governed by the rule of law , special dismissal provisions were inserted in LAW , Topic A , LAW , no . CARDINAL , of GPE I to the LAW .

Paragraph CARDINAL of Chapter ORG , Topic A , LAW , no . CARDINAL , of GPE I to the German LAW accordingly provides :

“ Ordinary dismissal from an employment relationship in the public administration is permissible if

the employee does not comply with the requirements on account of a lack of professional qualification or personal aptitude ( ... ) ”

“ Die ordentliche ORG in der öffentlichen PERSON zulässig , wenn

der Arbeitnehmer wegen mangelnder fachlicher GPE oder persönlicher GPE den Anforderungen nicht entspricht ( ... ) ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the same LAW reads as follows :

“ A valid reason for an extraordinary dismissal exists , in particular , if the employee

cooperated with the former ORG for ORG [ of GPE ]

and if the public employer can therefore not reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship . ”

“ Ein wichtiger ORG für eine ausserordentliche PERSON insbesondere dann gegeben , wenn PERSON

für das frühere ORG für ORG für nationale GPE war

und deshalb ein Festhalten am NORP unzumutbar erscheint ” .

According to the case - law of ORG , a civil servant has a duty to uphold the free democratic constitutional system in everything he does ( BverfG , ORG , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . In particular , a school teacher is required to instil the fundamental values of the NORP Basic PERSON in his pupils and to ensure loyalty to those values in times of crisis as well as in situations of conflict ( BVerfG , decision of CARDINAL DATE . no . CARDINAL BvL CARDINAL - BverfG , ORG , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .


The applicant , PERSON i m Rathaus , is the fraction of an NORP party to ORG ( GPE ) . It was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by Mr PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .

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

In DATE a police officer , PERSON , revealed that he and some colleagues had repeatedly transmitted data from the central police computer to officials of ORG ( ORG ) . Subsequently criminal investigations were opened against several persons . In DATE ORG ( PERSON ) convicted PERSON GPE and the ORG official Mr GPE and sentenced them to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment suspended on probation . This judgment was later , in DATE , quashed upon appeal and Mr PERSON and Mr GPE were acquitted .

In the meantime , after the first instance judgment , the applicant issued , on DATE , a press release which read as follows :

“ Member of ORG to the police information scandal:”[A ] gift and [ a ] shame . ”

PERSON : GPE desperately needs a new Minister of Justice

GPE ( Member of ORG ) : “ A shame . This judgment quite clearly bears the hallmark of GPE ’s fellow party member , the Minister of Justice , PERSON ” so [ says ] the Green Member of ORG in view of the low [ sentences of the ] judgments against GPE and GPE . “ If CARDINAL considers the genesis of this incredible police information scandal , one has to wonder very much that after CARDINAL of suspects , DATE investigations and a long trial only this [ judgment ] remains . ”

PERSON concludes : “ An embarrassing judgment which lets down the persons who have been spied upon and opens the floodgates for further abuse of personal data by ‘ political engaged’ or simply ‘ currupt’ executive officers ”

[ ORG und Schande ”

PERSON : PERSON braucht dringend neuen LOC .

GPE ( PERSON ) “ PERSON . Dieses Urteil trägt ganz klar die PERSON ” , so die PERSON in GPE geringen PERSON GPE und GPE . “ PERSON man die PERSON unglaublichen NORP wundert man sich schon sehr , wenn von mehreren Dutzend Verdächtigen , monatelangen ORG und ein langwieriger Prozess lediglich dies übrig bleibt . ”

PERSON abschlieβend : “ PERSON peinliches ORG , das die bespitzelten QUANTITY lässt und Tür und Tor für PERSON vertraulichen PERSON politisch ORG oder schlicht ‘ käufliche’ PERSON öffnet ” ]

Mr PERSON subsequently brought proceedings under section CARDINAL of LAW ( Mediengesetz ) with ORG ( PERSON für PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG , having held on oral hearing , found that the statement “ A shame . This judgment quite clearly bears the hallmark of GPE ’s fellow party member , the Minister of Justice , PERSON ” amounted to defamation within the meaning of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . It ordered the applicant under LAW to pay compensation to PERSON in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) . It further ordered it to publish the judgment .

The court noted that the impugned statement read in its context suggested that PERSON had abused his authority as Minister of ORG to influence the deciding court . However , the applicant had failed to prove that this had indeed been so .

The applicant appealed and submitted in particular that the impugned statement amounted to a value judgment on a political issue and it was therefore , in any event , not possible to prove its veracity . Furthermore , there had been some factual basis for the statement . The applicant referred in this regard to the general political background of the “ police information scandal ” , the conduct of the criminal investigations and to the fact that Mr PERSON at the beginning of the investigations had refused all reproaches of illegal data consulting . The applicant finally contended that the court should have interpreted the statement in a broader sense , meaning that the judgment against Mr PERSON and Mr GPE corresponded to Mr PERSON ’s political mindset and style .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It found that the impugned statement , read in its context , did not allow any other conclusion to be drawn than that Mr PERSON had unlawfully influenced the deciding judge in the criminal proceedings . However , the evidence adduced by the applicant , namely general press releases relating to the conduct of the criminal investigations in the police information case , PERSON statements in the context of these investigations and the fact that PERSON had himself been criticised for allegedly having used illegal obtained material , did not give any indication for the veracity of this allegation . The applicant ’s right to freedom under expression under LAW did not protect false statements of facts . Moreover , the applicant had not even given Mr PERSON the opportunity to comment .

This judgment was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .


Violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property)

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

His wife died on DATE , leaving CARDINAL children of QUANTITY and DATE of age respectively . His claim for widows’ benefits was made on DATE and was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . The applicant appealed and his claims were consistently rejected up to the most recent decision dated DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant made a claim to ORG , requesting an allowance equivalent to that received by a widow , namely ORG ( “ ORG ” ) . After various rejections , on DATE the Inland Revenue confirmed that he was ineligible for ORG as he was not a woman .

The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security or tax benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The relevant domestic law and practice is described in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV ; and PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and Geen v. the GPE , nos . CARDINAL , GPE , GPE and GPE , judgment of DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of land registry proceedings);Violation of Art. 13;No separate issue under P1-1;Remainder inadmissible (length of inheritance proceedings);Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant ’s mother died on CARDINAL DATE and inheritance proceedings were opened before the ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the court issued a decision distributing the property between the applicant and his brother . The relevant part of that decision reads :

... the land registry division of this court shall register the ownership of the heirs [ listed above ] , once [ that part of the decision ] becomes final ...

Subsequently , the applicant ’s brother lodged an appeal against that decision complaining about the ruling on the costs of the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) declared the appeal inadmissible . The decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

It would appear that the applicant ’s ownership of the inherited property has to date not been recorded in the land register .


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

On DATE the applicant filed an application for the distribution of an inheritance left by his grandmother .

On numerous occasions the proceedings were suspended , mostly due to the successive deaths of the parties . The proceedings were :

suspended on DATE ;

resumed on an unknown date in DATE ;

suspended on DATE ;

resumed on an unknown date in DATE or DATE ;

suspended on DATE ;

resumed on DATE ;

suspended on DATE ;

resumed on DATE ;

suspended on DATE ;

resumed on DATE ;

suspended on DATE but immediately resumed ;

suspended on DATE .

The proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “ the GPE ” ) . He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings was excessive and compensation .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint . In its assessment of the length of the proceedings , ORG did not take into account the period before the entry into force of LAW . It then went on to analyse in detail the course of the proceedings , finding that ORG had conducted them in a correct and timely manner . It further concluded that the long duration of the proceedings had resulted from numerous requests and motions filed by the parties as well as from the successive deaths of the parties . This obliged ORG to suspend the proceedings each time . ORG finally pointed out that it was incumbent on the parties and not on the court to determine the identity of the heirs of the deceased parties in order for the proceedings to be continued .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are stated in the ORG 's decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII and the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL


The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who lives in PERSON . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

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

The applicant introduced proceedings for the preservation of evidence ( GPE ) against a building company , P.

On DATE ORG ( Bezirksgericht ) ordered the applicant to pay part of the defendant 's costs relating to the preservation of evidence , namely DATE NORP schillings ( ORG ) .

The defendant appealed against the costs order ( ORG ) . This appeal was not transmitted to the applicant .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , sitting in camera , partly granted the defendant 's appeal and ordered the applicant to reimburse costs of altogether ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

No main proceedings were brought , as meanwhile , in DATE , the parties had concluded an out - of - court settlement . Under the terms of this settlement the P. company paid the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as compensation for damages and ORG as reimbursement for cash expenses incurred in the proceedings for the preservation of evidence .

Proceedings for the preservation of evidence are regulated in LAW ( Zivilprozeßordnung ) .

“ ( CARDINAL ) An application for evidence to be taken or for witnesses and experts to be heard can be lodged , for the purposes of securing the presentation of the evidence , at any time in the proceedings and even before the proceedings have begun if there is cause to fear that the evidence will otherwise be lost or its examination made difficult .

( CARDINAL ) Those measures can also be ordered where the conditions of [ LAW ] paragraph CARDINAL are not satisfied if the present condition of an item of evidence is to be ascertained and the applicant has a legal interest in having it ascertained . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The party applying for the measure shall be liable for the costs of the taking of evidence without prejudice to any claim for damages on their part . The other party to the proceedings shall be reimbursed the necessary costs of his or her participation in the taking of evidence without prejudice to the decision in the main proceedings . ”


CASE OF KASYMAKHUNOV AND SAYBATALOV v. RUSSIA

Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Nullum crimen sine lege);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant ’s whereabouts are unknown . The second applicant lives in LOC .

The applicants are members of ORG ut - PERSON .

Hizb ut - PERSON ( ORG – hereinafter “ PERSON ” ) is an international NORP organisation with branches in many parts of the world , including LOC and LOC . It advocates the overthrow of governments and their replacement by an NORP State in the form of a recreated Caliphate . PERSON first emerged among NORP in GPE in DATE . It has achieved a small , but highly committed following in a number of LOC states and has also gained in popularity among NORP in western LOC and GPE . It began working in LOC in DATE and has developed a committed following inside GPE , and to a lesser extent in neighbouring GPE , GPE and GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE found CARDINAL organisations , including PERSON ut - GPE , to be terrorist organisations and prohibited their activity in the territory of GPE . It held a hearing in camera which was attended by a representative of ORG office , but not the NORP representatives . The part concerning ORG ut - GPE reads in its entirety as follows :

“ ORG ( ‘ PERSON - GPE ) is an organisation that pursues the aims of overthrowing non - NORP governments and of establishing NORP rule on an international scale by reviving a ‘ Worldwide Islamic Caliphate’ , in the first place in the regions with a predominantly NORP population , including GPE and other members of ORG . Its main methods and activities include NORP militant propaganda , combined with intolerance towards other religions , active recruitment of supporters , and activities aimed at promoting schism and disunity in society ( primarily proselytism with massive financial support ) . It is banned in LOC and ORG countries ( GPE ) . ”

On DATE ORG rejected as out of time the appeal submitted by one of the banned organisations . It found it established , on the basis of the evidence submitted by ORG office , that the information about the decision of DATE had been published in the mass media in DATE . The fact that the organisation had not learned about that decision until DATE was irrelevant . There had therefore been no reason to extend the time - limit for appealing .

On DATE a list of organisations declared to be terrorist organisations by the NORP courts was for the first time published in the official periodical ORG . The list included , among others , the organisations declared to be terrorist organisations by ORG decision of DATE , such as ORG ut - GPE .

On DATE the first applicant was arrested . On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against him and his partner Ms NORP They were accused of being members of PERSON and were charged with aiding and abetting terrorism , founding a criminal organisation and using forged documents , offences under LAW , LAW and LAW .

When questioned by the investigator , the first applicant admitted to being a member of PERSON ut - GPE and living in GPE under a false name and with forged identity documents . According to him , PERSON was a political organisation with a strict hierarchical structure and the aim of establishing the Caliphate through “ velvet revolutions ” , first in NORP lands and then in other traditionally non - NORP countries . It did not resort to , or call for , violence . Its members viewed ORG as a political ideology rather than a religious belief . The first applicant ’s main activity consisted in talking to people in an attempt to persuade them to join PERSON ut - GPE . He distributed PERSON literature and explained its ideology . He had succeeded in recruiting CARDINAL or CARDINAL people who formed the GPE section of NORP ut - GPE under his leadership . He gave instructions to the members of his section and was also responsible for maintaining contacts with other local sections of NORP ut - GPE . He knew that the organisation had been banned in GPE and therefore the members of his section had pseudonyms .

His partner PERSON gave similar evidence . She affirmed that PERSON was not a terrorist organisation .

NORP The investigator also obtained statements from several witnesses . The witnesses stated that the first applicant and PERSON had attempted to persuade them to become members of PERSON ut - GPE and had supplied them with PERSON literature . They gave the leaflets and brochures received from the first applicant to the investigator . Some of the witnesses testified that the first applicant had urged them to fight the unfaithful , including with weapons , and they had the impression that he had called for assistance to NORP guerrillas . CARDINAL witness also stated that the first applicant had advocated the establishment of sharia on the territory of GPE .

The first applicant ’s flat was searched and guidelines on the use of weapons , explosives and poisons were found there .

In DATE the case was sent for trial before ORG .

The first applicant pleaded not guilty . He admitted his membership of NORP ut - PERSON and confirmed his previous description of its activities and ideology . He insisted that it was not a terrorist organisation and that it condemned any use of violence . He repudiated in part his previous statement , stating that it had been given under pressure , and denied any attempts to persuade people to join PERSON . He further stated that the guidelines found in his flat had been planted by the police .

The first applicant ’s partner PERSON denied being a member of PERSON and stated that she had not known about its being banned in GPE .

The trial court then questioned witnesses called by the prosecution , who confirmed the statements they had given during the investigation .

Finally , the trial court examined the leaflets and brochures distributed by the first applicant .

On DATE the ORG found the first applicant guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism , founding a criminal organisation and using forged documents ( LAW , LAW and LAW ) . Referring to the witness testimony , the first applicant ’s statements to the investigator and documentary evidence , the court found it established that the first applicant , being a member of PERSON , had founded a local section of that organisation and , in the period from DATE to DATE , had recruited new members and distributed the organisation ’s literature . The court analysed the contents of the leaflets and brochures distributed by the first applicant and found that they proclaimed the superiority of ORG over other religions and political ideologies , such as communism and capitalism , and advocated intolerance towards non - NORP . They also rejected democratic principles as incompatible with the rules of sharia . They declared war on governments which were not based on ORG and called for their overthrow , including by violent methods . They urged members of PERSON to take part in the sacred war ( jihad ) . By stating that jihad was not a defensive war but a struggle to expand ORG , which had to be carried out even if the “ unfaithful ” did not attack NORP , the documents in question openly advocated and glorified warfare in the name of Allah . They also stated that such countries as GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE were enemy GPE and that war had to be declared against any ORG that occupied NORP lands . ORG above enemy States should not be allowed to enter NORP states and it should be permitted to kill them and take their property if they were not NORP . Referring to the contents of the above - mentioned leaflets and brochures , the contents of the guidelines on the use of weapons , explosives and poisons found in the first applicant ’s flat and ORG decision of DATE , the court concluded that the local section of NORP ut - GPE founded by the first applicant was a terrorist organisation . The court also found it established that the first applicant had known about ORG decision of DATE . His actions had therefore amounted to incitement to participate in the activities of a terrorist organisation , punishable under LAW , and to founding of a criminal organisation , punishable under LAW of the LAW .

The court sentenced the first applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

In his submissions on appeal the first applicant stated that he had never called for or resorted to violence . Nor had he been involved in any terrorist activities . His conviction for spreading NORP ideology had breached his right to freedom of speech and opinion . He also argued that the trial court had incorrectly interpreted the religious terminology contained in PERSON ut - GPE ’s literature . Given that the trial judge did not have sufficient knowledge of religious matters , an expert opinion should have been ordered . Finally , the first applicant submitted that he had had no knowledge of the decision of ORG banning PERSON as that decision had never been officially published .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the conviction on appeal .

On DATE the ORG of GPE decided to bring the applicant ’s sentence into conformity with the recent amendments to LAW . It found that incitement to participate in the activities of a terrorist organisation was no longer classified as adding or abetting terrorism in the new version of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court therefore decided to set aside the conviction under LAW and reduce the first applicant ’s sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal .

On DATE the first applicant finished serving his sentence . He is now facing extradition proceedings to GPE , where criminal proceedings are pending against him in relation to his membership of ORG ut - GPE . On DATE he disappeared from GPE and his current whereabouts are unknown .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the second applicant and CARDINAL other persons by the LOC regional prosecutor ’s office . They were accused of being members of ORG ut - GPE and charged with aiding and abetting terrorism , an offence under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW , and founding and membership of an extremist organisation , an offence under LAW and QUANTITY of LAW .

When questioned by the investigator , the second applicant admitted to being a member of ORG ut - GPE and , since DATE , the leader of its local sections in LOC and Tobolsk . Their aim was to establish the Caliphate in LOC . He had learned that the organisation had been banned in GPE in the course of his interview with the police in DATE . The meetings of the local sections had all been held in secret . He had chaired the meetings , had admitted new members , had distributed PERSON literature and had explained its ideology . He had also been responsible for maintaining contacts with the GPE section of NORP ut - GPE .

His co - defendants gave similar evidence . They confirmed the second applicant ’s leadership position and his regular contact with other local sections of ORG ut - GPE in GPE . During their regular and secret meetings they had read PERSON literature and discussed its aims , among which had been recruitment of new members and dissemination of ORG ut - GPE ’s ideology among the population through media publications and distribution of leaflets . The issues they had discussed during the meetings were often political rather than religious . Members of the organisation had to give an oath , pay contributions and obey orders by the leaders . They considered themselves part of the international organisation NORP ut - PERSON . Some of them stated that they knew that the organisation had been banned in GPE .

The investigator also obtained statements from several witnesses . The witnesses stated that the defendants had attempted to persuade them to become members of ORG ut - GPE and had supplied them with the organisation ’s literature .

The GPE flats were searched and multiple copies of ORG literature and leaflets were found there . Some of those leaflets criticised the authorities’ decision to ban ORG ut - GPE and the ensuing arrests and criminal proceedings against its members . It was also discovered that documents containing PERSON ut - GPE ’s texts and information about its activities were stored on the hard disk of the second applicant ’s computer and several floppy disks .

In DATE the case was sent for trial before ORG . All defendants , including the second applicant , repudiated their previous statements , stating that they had been given under duress , and pleaded not guilty .

They admitted to being followers of ORG ut - GPE ’s ideology but denied being members of the organisation . They had gathered regularly and openly to read NORP texts and discuss religious issues . All the texts had been printed out from the Internet and none of them had been banned or recognised as extremist . They had never planned or participated in any terrorist activities , nor had they incited others to commit terrorist acts . They were opposed to violence and strived to achieve their aim , namely establishment of the ORG , through ideological and political struggle .

The trial court then questioned witnesses called by the prosecution . Some of them confirmed the evidence they had given during the investigation , while the others repudiated their previous statements .

The court also listened to audio recordings and watched video recordings of the defendants’ meetings . During the meetings the defendants discussed the ideology and aims of ORG ut - GPE , its structure and the methods employed by it . The second applicant and his assistant had been the principal spokesmen . They had instructed the others that orders should be immediately obeyed and had warned that those who refused to obey would be punished . They had also explained that the local section ’s main activities were to be proselytism , involvement of new members and establishment of contacts with high - ranking ORG officials . During CARDINAL of the meetings the defendants had discussed the possibility of obtaining arms and explosives and committing terrorist acts . During another meeting the second applicant ’s assistant had stated the following :

“ ‘ I am astonished why you have NORP here , why you have so many of them accumulated?’

‘ We have overseers in CARDINAL towns , I mean our supporters . The criminal world supports us . PERSON supports us . In our town the [ criminals ] support us.’

‘ You should have hate , fury ... You should be a wolf , you should attack . You should not be afraid of burying someone in asphalt , when someone is assaulted you should join in , you should make a contribution to violence . You should be like that . NORP are foul people , they act in an underhand way . They will not carry out an attack themselves , they will hire someone . They are sly and rich , they control the town thanks to their PERSON ”

The court further examined the contents of the Internet site maintained by ORG ut - GPE and the literature found in the GPE flats .

Finally , the court examined expert reports submitted by the prosecutor . A panel composed of experts in religious , political and linguistic matters examined the literature found during the search of the GPE flats and the audio and video recordings . The experts concluded that the documents and recordings contained religious and political propaganda on behalf of ORG ut - GPE . Some of them contained radical fundamentalist statements accepting and advocating the use of violence and armed struggle in the form of jihad . Therefore , there were reasons to consider that PERSON utTahrir ’s literature was extremist in nature and that its dissemination amounted to pro - terrorism propaganda . The documents under examination advocated the idea that all existing GPE and governments were illegitimate as they were not based on ORG and called for their overthrow , including by violent methods , for the universal NORP of mankind and for the establishment of a “ Worldwide NORP Caliphate ” ; in other words , they called for a coup d’état and the forcible taking over of the government in all countries . The experts noted that although the documents did not indicate clearly the methods by which the organisation ’s aims were to be achieved and did not openly call for the commission of terrorist acts , they unambiguously rejected any possibility of the organisation ’s participation in the democratic political process . It followed , in the experts’ opinion , that its aim of taking over governments could only be achieved through the use of violence . The documents also contained ideas promoting the superiority of NORP over adherents of other religions and consistent calls for confrontation between NORP fundamentalists and all others . They were capable of creating hostility and disunity in society . Finally , the linguistic experts found that the documents under examination were highly manipulative and capable of influencing the mind and the will of the reader . They employed professional manipulation techniques . Thus , they twisted the meanings of some words , for example interpreting “ terrorism ” as acts of violence against NORP only , while the same acts against adherents of other religions were described as sacred war against non - believers ( jihad ) .

The trial court questioned CARDINAL of the experts , who confirmed his findings . He added that ORG ut - GPE was an extremist organisation that was intolerant towards other religions . It called for violence against non - believers , which might be interpreted as incitement to terrorism .

The experts called by the defence disputed the above findings . CARDINAL of the experts , a co - president of ORG of GPE , stated to the court that PERSON ut - GPE was not a terrorist organisation and was not involved in the commission of any terrorist acts . Its ideology was utopian and unrealistic . Its main activity was NORP proselytism . According to its texts , the ORG was to be established by peaceful methods . Another expert also testified that the members of ORG ut - GPE were not violent and did not present any danger to national security .

On DATE the ORG found the second applicant and his co - defendants guilty as charged . Referring to the witness testimony , the GPE statements to the investigator , the audio and video recordings of the GPE meetings and the expert opinions , the court found it established that since DATE the defendants had been members of PERSON . That organisation had been declared to be a terrorist and extremist organisation and banned by ORG . Given that ORG decision had been duly published , that the second applicant had been informed about its contents in DATE in the course of his interview with the police in connection with a similar criminal case and that leaflets criticising that decision and the ensuing arrests and criminal proceedings against members of PERSON had been found in the GPE flats , ORG found it established that the defendants knew about ORG decision banning PERSON . Despite that fact , they had not stopped their activities as members of ORG ut - GPE and had continued to hold secret meetings , recruit new members and distribute the organisation ’s literature . The documents distributed by the defendants were extremist as they advocated violence , rejected the rule of law and encouraged hatred towards adherents of other religions . Their actions had therefore amounted to founding and membership of a banned extremist organisation , punishable under LAW of LAW , and to incitement to participate in the activities of a terrorist organisation , punishable under LAW .

The court sentenced the second applicant to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment for the offence under LAW and to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for the offence under LAW . The aggregate sentence was fixed at CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

In his submissions on appeal the second applicant stated that he had never committed any terrorist acts or been involved in any terrorist activities . He and his co - defendants had gathered to read NORP literature and to discuss religious issues . His conviction had therefore violated his rights under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .

Information on the nature and activities of ORG ut - GPE is scarce and contradictory . The most comprehensive report was prepared by ORG in DATE . The report , entitled “ Radical ORG in LOC : Responding to PERSON ” , reads , as far as relevant , as follows :

“ PERSON ut - GPE is not a religious organisation , but rather a political party whose ideology is based on ORG . It aims to re - establish the historical Caliphate in order to bring together all NORP lands under NORP rule and establish a state capable of counterbalancing the West . It rejects contemporary efforts to establish NORP states , asserting that GPE and GPE do not meet the necessary criteria . According to PERSON , the NORP state is one in which NORP law – Sharia – is applied to all walks of life , and there is no compromise with other forms of legislation .

ORG ut - GPE claims to reject violence as a form of political struggle , and most of its activities are peaceful . In theory , the group rejects terrorism , considering the killing of innocents to be against NORP law . However , behind this rhetoric , there is some ideological justification for violence in its literature , and it admits participation in a number of failed coup attempts in LOC . It also has contacts with some groups much less scrupulous about violence . But despite the allegations of governments , there is no proof of its involvement in terrorist activities in LOC or elsewhere .

Government responses have been contradictory and often ineffective . In much of LOC , the organisation is banned from acting openly , and many of its members have been imprisoned . NORP governments have taken particularly harsh stances , with GPE leading the way by arresting and sentencing CARDINAL of members to long prison terms . In some other NORP countries , such as GPE , PERSON ut - GPE acts more or less openly , as it does in much of LOC ...

The party ’s writings elaborate CARDINAL stages of political struggle , based on its interpretation of the historical mission of the Prophet PERSON in establishing the first NORP state :

The First : The stage of culturing ; this involves finding and cultivating individuals who are convinced by the thought and method of the party . This is necessary in order to formulate and establish a group capable of carrying the party ’s ideas .

The Second : The stage of interaction with the ORG ( wider NORP community ) in order to encourage the ORG to work for ORG and to carry the Da’wah ( message ) as if it was its own , and so that it works to establish NORP in life , state and society .

The Third : The stage of taking the government and implementing ORG completely and totally , and carrying its message to the world .

The first stage is the most important in present party activity and CARDINAL of the keys to its longevity . It is based on finding appropriate members and moulding them to its thinking ...

The second stage involves : ‘ Collective culturing of the masses ... through organising lessons in the FAC , conferences , lectures , places of public gathering , newspapers , books and leaflets ... ’ PERSON ut - GPE is very effective at spreading its views through wide publication of books and leaflets in multiple languages and a network of well - run websites that provide access to most of the party ’s literature .

Through these CARDINAL stages of political work , PERSON ut - GPE claims that it can develop mass understanding of its ideas ( although not necessarily mass membership ) , and most importantly that it can persuade influential figures in politics , the military and elsewhere to act in accordance with its program and aims . The party actively attempts to recruit well - educated members of society , particularly those in positions that allow them to influence popular opinion .

Getting from this position – wide acceptance of ideas , and some influence on those who are capable of influencing policy DATE to establishment of an NORP state is the essence of the third stage of political struggle . It is this stage , the actual seizure of power , and the establishment of the NORP state , that is most murky in the literature . In most of its writings PERSON rejects participation in parliamentary democracy , or any alliances with other political parties to gain power ...

There is little doubt about ORG ut - GPE ’s disregard for democracy . It rejects the concept as a NORP , anti - NORP invention and is not interested in acting as a party within an open political system . A recent publication claims : ‘ Democracy ... is considered a kufr [ unbelievers ] system , it is in clear contradiction with the Qu’ran and GPE ...

It is widely reported that ORG ut - GPE , both in LOC and beyond , eschews violence to achieve its ends . Some human rights activists have argued that it is essentially a peaceful group that operates only in the realm of ideas and propaganda . It has never been proven to have been involved in any violence in LOC , and in its other global activities it has generally pursued its aims through peaceful propaganda . It is strongly opposed to GPE policy in LOC , but does not call for terrorist actions against GPE . Indeed , it claims to be opposed to terrorist activity and asserts that the killing of innocent civilians is against NORP law . Its literature is straightforward , claiming that ‘ ... military struggle is not the method of re - establishing the Khilafah’ ...

Yet the view that ORG ut - GPE is opposed to political violence per se is mistaken . The situation is much more nuanced than most researchers allow ... CARDINAL scholar explains :

‘ ... in practical terms an - PERSON argued that a regime could be brought down through acts of civil disobedience such as strikes , noncooperation with the authorities or demonstrations , or through a procession to the palace or presidential residence , provided that the movement enjoys exclusive control and leadership ... Alternatively , it could be toppled through a military coup executed by forces that have agreed to hand over power to the movement.’

However , ORG ut - ORG argues that as a political party it does not undertake any physical or violent actions . So how can it justify involvement in a military coup ?

‘ ORG ut - GPE itself eschews the use of force [ but ] ... internal sources argue that groups pledging the party their back - up can use arms ... if society stands against the regime its removal even by military force does not constitute an act of violence : this would be the case only if the party were to kill its opponents to arrive in power , for example.’ ...

What this means in practice is not certain , but it could clearly be interpreted as seeking military assistance from other groups , should members be experiencing considerable harm , or in the broadest sense to establish the ORG . In this way , the party remains committed to its intellectual and political struggle but does not rule out seeking assistance from other groups , including some that will take military action on its behalf ...

The party ’s interpretation of jihad is also somewhat confused at first glance ... A member in GPE explained : ‘ There are CARDINAL types of jihad : the physical and the spiritual . The physical jihad will come after the establishment of the Caliphate . The spiritual is for now’ ...

Although the main jihad is not expected until the ORG is introduced , this does not mean that NORP should not fight defensive wars . Thus , NORP , PERSON ut - GPE members included , are enjoined to fight against an invader if attacked ...

There is much loose rhetoric about jihad in party leaflets , which does not always underline these distinctions . And there is clearly some potential for a defensive jihad to be interpreted in a very broad fashion . But the main thrust of ORG ut - GPE thinking seems to have remained intact : the jihad will come when the ORG is established ...

Historically , the party ’s record provides no evidence of it being involved in terrorist activity against civilians , or in military actions against GPE or Western interests . But there is good evidence of its involvement in a series of failed coups and attempts to overthrow governments in LOC . Some of the evidence for these incidents is disputed , but it seems clear that PERSON ut - GPE was involved in an attempted coup PERSON in GPE on several occasions in DATE and DATE . It was also accused of involvement in an attack on the military academy in GPE in DATE , interpreted by the government as preparation for a coup . Far from denying involvement , party representatives admit that , ‘ It is no secret that ORG ut - GPE has been involved in a number of failed coup attempts in the GPE ...

Thus while it seems clear that ideologically and practically PERSON can not be classified as a terrorist group , it is willing to persuade militaries to overthrow their governments , and in certain cases be involved in such military coups itself . Should it ever come to power , its willingness to use violence as an NORP state would be more certain : it consistently emphasises that the duty of the NORP state is to carry out military campaigns to free NORP lands from the rule of ‘ ORG and to wage war against GPE ... ”

The report goes on to describe the position of ORG ut - GPE in western LOC :

“ According to the ORG ut - GPE leader in GPE , PERSON , the party is growing by actively recruiting second - generation NORP immigrants ... The party ’s popularity among NORP in the LOC has continued to grow , providing it a strong organisational , and possibly financial , base .

GPE became the first NORP state to ban ORG ut - GPE in DATE , citing its anti - NORP and anti - NORP propaganda . However , the NORP authorities did not provide any evidence of links between it and terrorist groups . NORP security forces carried out further raids on known activists , now working illegally , in DATE .

In GPE the party has also garnered support among immigrants . In DATE its leader , PERSON , was convicted of breaking anti - racism laws , after he handed out leaflets allegedly calling for NORP to be killed . The group claims the quotes were taken out of context . The government has apparently considered banning the party , which according to media reports has CARDINAL members .

In the GPE PERSON remains very active , particularly in GPE and in towns with major NORP populations such as GPE , GPE and GPE . It has been notably successful in recruiting students , although it has been banned from many university campuses , because of its anti - Semitism , alleged threatening behaviour towards students of other faiths , and public objections to homosexuality ... ”

Human Rights Watch notes in its DATE report “ Creating Enemies of the ORG . Religious Persecution in GPE ” :

“ PERSON ut - GPE renounces violence as a means to achieve reestablishment of the ORG . However , it does not reject the use of violence during armed conflicts already under way and in which the group regards NORP as struggling against oppressors , such as NORP violence against NORP occupation . Its literature denounces secularism and Western - style democracy . Its anti - NORP and anti - GPE statements have led the government of GPE to ban it ... Some in the diplomatic community , in particular the GPE government , consider NORP ut - GPE to be a political organization and therefore argue that imprisoned NORP ut - GPE members are not victims of religious persecution . But religion and politics are inseparable in PERSON ut - GPE ’s ideology and activities ... Even if CARDINAL accepts that there is a political component to ORG ut - GPE ’s ideology , methods , and goals , this does not vitiate the right of that group ’s members to be protected from religion - based persecution ...

ORG ut - GPE ’s designation as a nonviolent organization has been contested . PERSON ut - GPE literature does not renounce violence in armed struggles already under way ORG and GPE , GPE , and LOC – in which it views NORP as the victims of persecution . But PERSON ut - GPE members have consistently rejected the use of violence to achieve the aim of reestablishing the Caliphate , which they believe will only be legitimate if created the same way they believe the Prophet PERSON created the original Caliphate , and which can occur only as a result of gradual ‘ ORG among NORP ... ”

Another report on ORG ut - GPE ’s activities , entitled “ Whether PERSON ut - GPE is an extremist organisation ? ” , was published on DATE by ORG , a NORP nongovernmental organisation . The report states , in particular , that following ORG decision of DATE banning PERSON ut - GPE , many of its members were charged with aiding and abetting terrorism , membership of a criminal organisation , membership of an extremist organisation or unlawful possession of arms . The first applicant was the first to be convicted at final instance . Many other convictions followed thereafter .

The report further states that the analysis of ORG ut - GPE ’s literature reveals that that organisation openly and unequivocally rejects democratic principles and political freedoms , such as freedom of religion and freedom of thought , declaring that they are contrary to ORG . Moreover , the literature declares that it is justified to use violence to fight democracy . However , it affirms that such violence will be used only after the establishment of the ORG and the commencement of jihad . Although there are CARDINAL commonly accepted meanings of this term in GPE , PERSON utTahrir ’s literature almost always means holy war when speaking of jihad . Many countries , such as GPE and GPE , are declared to be enemy GPE which should be fought against already , including by violent methods . PERSON , however , does not directly call upon its members to participate in that fight . PERSON expresses its support to NORP separatists , even though it condemns terrorist acts against the civil population committed on NORP territory , at the same time denying the possibility of involvement of NORP separatists in such acts . It should be also noted that PERSON does not use the term “ terrorism ” in its common meaning , considering any violent acts against enemy GPE , including those that would be normally classified as terrorist acts , to constitute part of holy war . The report cites PERSON document entitled “ The NORP rule on hijacking aeroplanes ” , which states that it is justified to hijack civil aeroplanes of enemy GPE and kill their passengers because the citizens of such GPE and their property constitute legitimate war targets . That document was deleted from PERSON website DATE , but no statements disavowing its contents have ever been made by the organisation ’s leadership , which gives cause to believe that it has been deleted for the purposes of secrecy . As regards the means for the establishment of the ORG , ORG ut - GPE ’s literature is not clear on this point . It is certain that the organisation rejects the possibility of participation in parliamentary elections or any other democratic process in order to come to power . There remains the possibility of a coup d’état committed by more or less violent methods . The Caliphate must , however , first be established on traditionally NORP territories , which do not include GPE . Accordingly , the report concludes that PERSON ut - GPE is not planning any coup PERSON in GPE and its activities there are limited to proselytism .

Finally , the report notes that some of ORG ut - GPE ’s documents , including those that can still be found on the organisation ’s NORP website , contain anti - NORP propaganda , glorification of suicide bombers in GPE and calls for violence against NORP and for the destruction of GPE . It thus concludes that NORP ut - GPE is an extremist organisation stirring anti - NORP hatred and advocating violence . The report recommends , however , that ORG decision banning PERSON ut - GPE should be annulled and that prosecution of individuals on the mere ground of their membership of that organisation should be stopped . It considers it advisable that only those of the organisation ’s members who have made statements advocating hatred or violence should face criminal or other proceedings .

A report entitled “ PERSON ut GPE ( ORG ) ” , published on DATE by the NORP research project ORG , Security , and LAW ( TTSRL ) , financed by ORG , reads as follows :

“ PERSON ut GPE ( ORG ) presents itself as ‘ a political party whose ideology is ORG , so politics is its work and ORG is its ideology ... ’ ... In their own eyes , PERSON ut GPE ( for short ) is a political group and not a priestly one ... It is a trans - national party or movement that claims to try to achieve its political goals without the use of violence and has branches in CARDINAL countries , including both NORP and NORP countries . In the NORP world they are , for instance , active not only in LOC , but also in GPE , GPE , GPE , and the former NORP republics in LOC . In almost all of these countries , NORP ut GPE is perceived as a threat to the state or even as a terrorist organisation . In the NORP world , PERSON ut GPE has a presence in , among others , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . To these countries , ORG ut GPE presents a particularly difficult challenge since it holds radical NORP views , but openly only advocates peaceful change . Nonetheless , in a number of ORG member states , the party is regarded as one that secretly does support the idea of a violent jihad and/or has been involved in anti - NORP incidents ...

The organizational structure of ORG ut GPE is rather complex ... The identities of ORG ut GPE ’s current leader and senior officers have not been mentioned in reliable open sources .

Concrete issues at the level of different national branches are in the hands of national leaders , where the scope and content of the activities within the branches greatly differ . A general distinction can be made between countries in which the party is permitted to operate freely , and countries in which ORG ut GPE is prosecuted . In GPE , for instance , [ NORP ut GPE ] is organized in a secretive and hierarchical pyramid structure made up of many CARDINAL - person cells whose members , after they have completed training averaging DATE , form their own groups or ‘ halka’ - also of CARDINAL to CARDINAL members . Other sources speak of CARDINAL - person cells ... In ORG member states , the branches of NORP ut GPE are organized like most political parties and have a hierarchical structure with a national leader , local groups and the possibility of membership for anyone who supports the party ’s ideas . In addition , the NORP branches of the party also consist of study groups , the above - mentioned ‘ halkas.’ ...

From the beginning , PERSON ut GPE ’s leadership decreed that members should not participate in terrorist activities . This message has been continuously reverberated . There are , however , many allegations of links between the party and terrorist organisations . It should be stressed that none of these allegations are backed by concrete evidence ...

There are , nonetheless , possible indirect links between ORG ut GPE and terrorist groups and individuals . In GPE , CARDINAL men , who in DATE were arrested and charged with conspiring to assassinate the NORP ambassador , were reported to have been in possession of NORP ut GPE literature and to have helped organize PERSON ut GPE meetings in GPE ... Another man , PERSON DATE who is linked to the CARDINAL men currently on trial in GPE on charges of planning terrorist attacks DATE and DATE has stated that he became a member of PERSON ut GPE and another radical group , PERSON , while at the university , when he became angered by the Gulf War ... In the above mentioned cases , as well as in most cases , those behind the allegations only point at involvement in GPE ut GPE activities while studying , the possession of NORP ut GPE materials , and other rather indirect relations between suspects of terrorism and the party . More serious are the allegations that connect the party to the other radical group mentioned above , AlMuhajiroun , established in DATE as a splinter group that broke off from LOC . According to leader PERSON , the CARDINAL groups initially split because PERSON ut GPE was ‘ too soft’ ... His group has been accused of recruiting young NORP in GPE to fight abroad in places such as LOC , GPE and GPE ...

Despite the above - mentioned allegations , authorities in the ORG have not yet formally accused NORP ut GPE for having links with terrorist organisations . In addition , there are no official reports that members have joined or become involved in the global jihad movement . However , it should be noted that some counties do see the organisation as a possible or potential threat to democracy and the rule of law ...

Unlike more traditional NORP parties , PERSON ut GPE refuses to be involved in local politics , making it impossible for regional leaders to co - opt the group . Although PERSON ut GPE describes itself as a political party , it does not want to participate in elections or want to be part of coalition governments ... The process towards the utopian NORP Caliphate is viewed more as a social or intellectual process rather than a political one .

For the above - mentioned intellectual struggle and intellectual transformation , PERSON ut GPE focuses primarily on highly educated NORP . The method is the socalled NORP da’wah through which society can be transformed into an NORP one . Within the ORG , the concrete translation of this concept is distributing leaflets at universities and near FAC , or to organise meetings on current political and social issues , such as the situation in GPE , the cartoon issue in GPE and LOC ... Although the method of da’wah seems very theoretical and impractical in relation to the stated goal , it can not be denied that the party has managed to attract CARDINAL of NORP in LOC who believe in its method ...

As mentioned above , PERSON ut GPE has branches in CARDINAL countries , in a number of which the party is considered a terrorist organisation . Within the ORG , where religiously inspired political parties enjoy relatively greater freedom than they do anywhere else , only GPE has outlawed NORP ut GPE ...

... [ Many ] questions remain open with regard to the nature of this party and its impact on society and how to deal with its spreading of anti - NORP , anti - Western and non - democratic ideas and sentiments ...

A case - study on an organisation such as ORG ut GPE as part of an overall large research project on counter - terrorism might suggest prematurely that PERSON ut - GPE falls in the category of labelled terrorist organisations , or at least belongs to a group of organisations that pose a serious threat to our NORP society . However , such qualifications can not be given to PERSON without serious reservations . The question can even be raised whether such qualification is fit for this organisation at all . Although , in its philosophy PERSON ut - GPE has anti - democratic tendencies , it also rejects the idea of violent jihad to achieve their goal of a caliphate . Most allegations on the terrorist connection of the organisation or some of its members point at rather indirect links , are not based on solid sources , or should by their numbers be assessed as mere coincidences .

On the other hand , experience shows that organisations such as ORG ut - GPE are ‘ very smart in walking the very fine line between propaganda and incitement to ORG , according to PERSON , director of ORG at ORG ... However , outlawing this organisation without a proper cause might have the opposite effect . It is therefore important to monitor with prudence and to act on facts instead of allegations . ”

Hizb ut - GPE ’s aims and principles , as well as the details of what an NORP state would look like , are outlined in a range of literature produced by the organisation . In particular , it has prepared a Draft Constitution which sketches the major provisions of an NORP State ( wording as in the original ) :

“ The NORP ‘ Aqeedah [ creed ] constitutes the foundation of the ORG . Nothing is permitted to exist in the government ’s structure , accountability , or any other aspect connected with the government , that does not take the ‘ Aqeedah as its source . The ‘ Aqeedah is also the source for the ORG ’s constitution and LAW canons . Nothing connected to the constitution or canons is permitted to exist unless it emanates from the NORP ‘ Aqeedah . ”

“ The ORG implements the aHkaam Sharia [ divine rules ] on all citizens who hold citizenship of ORG , whether NORP or not , in the following manner :

a. The aHkaam Sharia is implemented in its entirety , without exception , on all NORP .

b. Non - NORP are allowed to follow their own beliefs and worships .

c. Those who are guilty of apostasy ( murtadd ) from ORG are to be executed according to the rule of apostasy , provided they have by themselves renounced ORG . If they are born as non - NORP , i.e. , if they are the sons of apostates , then they are treated as non - NORP according to their status as being either polytheists ( mushriks ) or People of the Book .

d. In matters of food and clothing the non - NORP are treated according to their religions within the limits allowed by ORG .

e. ORG affairs ( including divorce ) among non - NORP are settled in accordance with their religions , but between non - NORP and NORP they are settled according to the aHkaam Sharia .

PERSON All the remaining LAW matters and rules , such as : the application of transactions , punishments and evidences ( at court ) , the system of ruling and economics are implemented by the ORG upon everyone , NORP and non - NORP alike . This includes the people of treaties ( mu’aahid ) , the protected subjects ( ahludh dhimmah ) and all who submit to the authority of ORG . The implementation on these people is the same as the implementation on the subjects of the ORG . Ambassadors and envoys enjoy diplomatic immunity . ”

“ No one is permitted to take charge of ruling , or any action considered to be of the nature of ruling , except a male who is free ( Hurr ) , i.e. not a slave , mature ( baaligh ) , sane ( ‘ aaqil ) , trustworthy ( ‘ adl ) , competent ; and he must [ be a NORP ] . ”

“ NORP are entitled to establish political parties to question the rulers and to access the positions of ruling through the ORG [ NORP community ] on condition that the parties are based on the ‘ Aqeedah of ORG and their adopted rules are aHkaam Sharia [ divine rules ] ; the establishment of such a party does not require a license by the ORG . Any party not established on the basis of ORG is prohibited . ”

“ The PERSON is deputised by the ORG with authority to implement the LAW . ”

“ Every mature male and female NORP , who is sane , has the right to participate in the election of the PERSON and in giving him the pledge ( ba’iah ) . Non - Muslims have no right in this regard . ”

“ There are CARDINAL conditions needed in the PERSON ... They are to be a male , NORP , free ( Hurr ) , mature ( baaligh ) , sane ( ‘ aaqil ) , trustworthy ( ‘ adl ) and able ( qaadir ) . ”

LAW further indicates that all highest Government officials , the chief judge and the judges of ORG ( the court which settles disputes between the citizens and the State ) must be male and NORP . NORP women are allowed to become lower - level officials and judges ( Articles CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE ) . NORP may be appointed only to technical and administrative official positions ( LAW ) .

LAW further continues :

“ The members of the Majlis al - Ummah [ people ’s assembly ] are those people who represent the NORP in respect of expressing their views to the PERSON when consulted . Non - NORP are allowed to be members of ORG so that they can voice their complaints in respect to unjust acts performed by the rulers or the misapplication of the NORP laws . ”

“ The members of the Majlis al - Ummah are elected by the people . ”

“ Consultation ( Shoora ) and the mashoora are the seeking of views in absolute terms . These views are not binding in legislation , definitions , intellectual matters such as discovering the facts and the technical and scientific matters . However they are binding when the PERSON consults in other practical matters and actions that do not need scrutiny or research . ”

“ All citizens , NORP or not , may express their views , but PERSON is a right for the NORP only . ”

“ Jihad is a compulsory duty ( farD ) on all NORP . Military training is therefore compulsory . Thus , every male NORP , DATE and over , is obliged to undergo military training in readiness for jihad ... ”

“ Segregation of the sexes is fundamental , they should not meet together except for a need that the LAW allows or for a purpose the LAW allows men and women to meet for , such as trading or pilgrimage ( PERSON ) . ”

“ Women have the same rights and obligations as men , except for those specified by the LAW evidences to be for him or her . Thus , she has the right to practice in trading , farming , and industry ; to partake in contracts and transactions ; to possess all form of property ; to invest her funds by herself ( or by others ) ; and to conduct all of life ’s affairs by her . ”

“ A woman can participate in elections ... and elect , and be a member of the Majlis al - Ummah , and can be appointed as an official of the ORG in a non - ruling position . ”

“ Women live within a public and private life . Within their public life , they are allowed to live with other women , ORG males [ males forbidden to them in marriage ] and foreign men ( whom they can marry ) on condition that nothing of the women ’s body is revealed , apart from her face and hands , and that the clothing is not revealing nor her charms displayed . Within the private life she is not allowed to live except with women or her ORG males and she is not allowed to live together with foreign men . In both cases she has to restrict herself with the rules of LAW . ”

“ The custody of children is both a right and duty of the mother , whether NORP or not , so long as the child is in need of this care . When children , girls or boys , are no longer in need of care , they are to choose which parent they wish to live with , whether the child is male or female . If CARDINAL of the parents is NORP , there is no choice for the child is to join the NORP parent . ”

“ PERSON [ property tax ] is collected from NORP on their properties ... ”

“ Jizyah ( head - tax ) is collected from the non - NORP ( dhimmis ) . It is to be taken from the mature men if they are financially capable of paying it . It is not taken from women or children . ”

“ The NORP creed constitutes the basis upon which the education policy is built . The syllabi and methods of teaching are designed to prevent a departure from this basis . ”

“ The purpose of education is to form the NORP personality in thought and behaviour . Therefore , all subjects in the curriculum must be chosen on this basis . ”

“ Arts and crafts may be related to science , such as commerce , navigation and agriculture . In such cases , they are studied without restriction or conditions . Sometimes , however , arts and crafts are connected to culture and influenced by a particular viewpoint of life , such as painting and sculpting . If this viewpoint of life contradicts the NORP viewpoint of life , these arts and crafts are not taken . ”

“ The state ’s curriculum is CARDINAL , and no curriculum other than that of the state is allowed to be taught . Private schools provided they are not foreign , are allowed as long as they adopt the state ’s curriculum and establish themselves on the ORG ’s educational policy and accomplish the goal of education set by the ORG . Teaching in such schools should not be mixed between males and females , whether the students or the teachers ; and they should not be specific for certain deen [ religion ] , madhab [ schools of NORP law ] , race or colour . ”

“ It is absolutely forbidden for any individual , party , group or association to have relations with a foreign state ... ”

“ The state ’s relations with other states are built upon CARDINAL considerations . These are :

GPE with whom we do not have treaties , the actual imperialist states , like GPE , GPE and GPE and those states that have designs on the ORG , like GPE , are considered to be potentially belligerent states . All precautions must be taken towards them and it would be wrong to establish diplomatic relations with them . Their subjects may enter ORG only with a passport and a visa specific to every individual and for every visit , unless it became a real belligerent country .

With states that are actually belligerent states , like GPE , a state of war must be taken as the basis for all measures and dealings with them . They must be dealt with as if a real war existed between us DATE whether an armistice exists or not – and all their subjects are prevented from entering the ORG . ”

“ The ORG is forbidden to belong to any organisation that is based on something other than ORG or which applies non - NORP rules . This includes international organisations like ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG , and regional organisations like ORG . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ( as in force at the material time ) provides as follows :

“ Terrorism , that is an explosion , arson or other acts creating a danger of loss of human life , substantial material damage or other socially dangerous consequences , provided that such acts were committed for the purposes of undermining national security , frightening the population or influencing the authorities in order to make them adopt decisions favourable to terrorists , as well as threats to commit the above - mentioned acts , is punishable by DATE imprisonment . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code ( as in force at the material time ) reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Aiding and abetting terrorism , that is incitement of a person to commit an offence under Articles CARDINAL [ terrorism ] , CARDINAL [ taking of hostages ] , CARDINAL [ organisation or membership of an armed criminal group ] , CARDINAL [ hijacking of an aeroplane , a ship or a train ] , CARDINAL [ attacking of a ORG official ] or CARDINAL [ attacking of a person or an institution under international protection ] of LAW ; incitement of a person to participate in the activities of a terrorist organisation ; training or arming of a person with the aim of committing one of the above - mentioned offences ; or financing of terrorism , is punishable by DATE imprisonment ... ”

On DATE that Article was amended . In particular , incitement to participate in the activities of a terrorist organisation was no longer classified as adding and abetting terrorism punishable under Article CARDINAL .

Article CARDINAL of the Code reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The founding of a criminal group ( criminal organisation ) for committing serious and especially serious offences , as well as the leadership of such group or CARDINAL of its sections ... is punishable by DATE imprisonment ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides that serious offences are premeditated offences for which LAW prescribes a maximum penalty of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . Especially serious offences are premeditated offences for which the Code prescribes a maximum penalty of DATE imprisonment or a heavier penalty .

Article CARDINAL of the Code reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The founding of a non - profit , religious or other organisation which has been dissolved or banned by a final judicial decision on the ground of its extremist activities is punishable by a fine ... , CARDINAL to CARDINAL months’ detention or up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

Membership of a non - profit , religious or other organisation which has been dissolved or banned by a final judicial decision on the ground of its extremist activities is punishable by a fine ... , CARDINAL months’ detention or up to two years’ imprisonment . ”

Article CARDINAL CARDINAL of the LAW provides that the use of official documents known to be forged is punishable by a fine , correctional labour , or CARDINAL six months’ detention .

The Anti - Terrorism Act ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , as in force at the material time ) defined terrorism as violence or the threat of violence directed against persons or organisations , as well as destruction or the threat of destruction of property or other physical objects , provided that such acts created a danger of loss of human life , substantial material damage or other socially dangerous consequences and that they were committed for the purposes of undermining national security , frightening the population , influencing the authorities in order to make them adopt decisions favourable to terrorists or satisfying their illegitimate pecuniary or other interests ; an attempt on the life of a ORG or public official committed for the purposes of stopping his or her public or political activities or in revenge for such activities ; an attack on a representative of a foreign ORG or a staff member of an international organisation enjoying international protection or on official buildings or means of transport of persons enjoying international protection , provided that such acts were committed with the purpose of provoking war or worsening international relations ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Terrorist activities include the following activities :

– organisation , planning , preparation and commission of terrorist acts ;

– incitement to commit terrorist acts , violence against persons or organisations or destruction of physical objects for terrorist purposes ;

– creation of an illegal armed group , criminal group ( organisation ) or organised group for the commission of terrorist acts , as well as involvement in such acts ;

– recruitment , arming and training of terrorists ;

– financing of an organisation or group known to be terrorist or any assistance to them ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

A terrorist organisation is an organisation created with the aim of carrying out terrorist activities or admitting the possibility of recourse to terrorism as part of its activities ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL) .

An organisation may be declared a terrorist organisation and dissolved by a judicial decision at the request of a prosecutor ( section CARDINAL ) .

On DATE a new LAW ( Federal Law no . CARDINALFZ ) was passed to replace the DATE LAW . The DATE LAW provides that a list of organisations which have been declared terrorist by a NORP court is to be kept by the federal security services . That list must be published in the official periodical press , as determined by the Government ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Pursuant to Government Decree no . CARDINAL-p of DATE , the list of organisations which have been declared to be terrorist organisations by a NORP court is to be published in the official periodical ORG .

The Suppression of Extremism Act ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , as in force at the material time ) , which was recently examined by ORG ( see Opinion on the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activity of the Russian Federation , adopted by ORG at its CARDINALst Plenary Session ( GPE , DATE ) ) , defines extremist activities as activities of non - profit , religious or other organisations , the media or individuals consisting in planning , directing , preparing or committing acts aimed at :

– forcible change of the constitutional foundations of GPE and breach of its territorial integrity ;

– undermining the national security of GPE ;

– taking over or usurpation of power ;

– founding of armed criminal groups ;

– carrying out of terrorist activities ;

– encouraging racial , ethnic , religious or social hatred accompanied by violence or calls for violence ;

– creation of mass disorder , commission of disorderly acts or acts of vandalism out of ideological , political , racial , ethnic or religious hatred or enmity , or out of hatred or enmity towards a social group ;

– propaganda promoting the exceptionality , superiority or inferiority of citizens on the ground of their religion , social position , race , ethnic origin or language ;

– propaganda and public display of NORP attributes or symbols , or attributes or symbols which are similar to NORP attributes or symbols to the point of becoming undistinguishable ;

– public appeals to carry out the above - mentioned activities or to commit the above - mentioned acts , as well as financing of the above - mentioned activities or the assistance of their performance by other means , including by providing financial support or technical facilities , information services or other facilities ( section CARDINAL§ CARDINAL ) .

The Suppression of Extremism Act further defines an extremist organisation as a non - profit , religious or other organisation which has been dissolved or banned by a final judicial decision on the ground of its extremist activities as defined by the LAW ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

It is prohibited to publish and distribute extremist material – that is , printed , audio , video or other material meeting CARDINAL of the criteria defined in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL . Such material includes official material of banned extremist organisations ( section CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant , a bus conductor , was dismissed by his employer , “ FAC ” , a transportation company based in PERSON .

On DATE he filed a claim with ORG in PERSON ( “ the ORG ” ) , seeking reinstatement and payment of salary arrears .

Following a remittal of DATE , the next hearing in the case was scheduled by ORG for DATE .

Of the CARDINAL separate hearings scheduled DATE and DATE , it would appear that CARDINAL were adjourned whilst CARDINAL were held . As regards the former , CARDINAL hearings were adjourned because the respondent and/or several witnesses had not been duly summoned and the other CARDINAL because witnesses , of whom CARDINAL were proposed by the applicant , had , though duly summoned , failed to appear in court ( for which omission they were ultimately fined ) .

On DATE ORG ruled against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was served with this judgment .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal with ORG in PERSON ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG returned the case file to ORG , requesting it to submit certain missing documents .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment rendered at first instance .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on points of law ( revizija ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided that all employment - related disputes were to be resolved by the courts within DATE from the date of institution of the proceedings .

This Act entered into force on DATE and thereby repealed LAW .

The text of LAW of LAW DATE corresponds to LAW .