Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations;Determination (civil));Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

By an order of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was settled as a tenant , together with his family , in a flat which the ORG had assigned in DATE for “ use and management ” to the ORG enterprise by which he was employed . He moved in the flat in DATE .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG transformed the enterprise employing the applicant into a NORP singlemember limited liability company . On DATE ORG ordered the entry of the newly formed company into the register of companies . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Minister of Industry , acting as a representative of the sole shareholder – the State – transformed the company into a ORG singleshareholder jointstock company . The transformation was entered into the register of companies kept at ORG on DATE .

In DATE , after the entry into force , on DATE , of certain amendments to LAW ORG of DATE ( „ Закон за уреждане на жилищните въпроси на граждани с многогодишни жилищноспестовни влогове “ – “ LAW of DATE ” – see paragraphs DATE below ) , the applicant applied to purchase the flat . He considered that paragraph CARDINAL of the additional provisions of the LAW entitled him to buy the flat at a preferential price . It appears that many of his colleagues had purchased the flats they were renting from their employer under this provision . On DATE the board of directors of the applicant ’s employer assented to the sale .

On DATE the applicant requested the mayor of ORG to approve the sale , enclosing declarations and documents purporting to establish that he met all the conditions laid down in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In addition , he submitted a letter from his employer ’s board of directors , in which it informed the mayor that it had assented to the sale and asked him to validate it . The letter expressly mentioned that the sale was to be effected under paragraph CARDINAL of the additional provisions of LAW of DATE , and indicated the company ’s bank account to which the municipality was to transfer the sale proceeds once the applicant had made the payment .

NORP The mayor failed to reply and on an unspecified date in DATE the applicant filed with ORG an application for judicial review of his tacit refusal .

In a judgment dated DATE and entered in the court ’s register on DATE , ORG quashed the refusal and instructed the mayor to issue , within DATE , an order validating the sale . It held as follows :

“ According to section CARDINAL of the [ LAW of DATE ( „ Наредба за държавните имоти “ – see paragraphs PERSON below ) ] , the sale of ORG - entityowned [ „ ведомствени “ ] housing units is effected by the municipal councils under the conditions laid down in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ Regulations ] , that is , pursuant to a proposal by the respective ORG entity , indicating the buyer . In such case , under LAW ] , the municipal council effects the sale on the basis of an order issued by it .

The text of LAW ] is categorical on the point that , provided all conditions for execution of the transaction have been met , the municipal council has no discretion whether or not to do so , but must issue the respective order . Such an order undoubtedly constitutes an individual administrative decision and is , like the tacit refusal to issue it , subject to review under LAW of DATE ( „ Закон за административното производство “ – “ the ORG ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ] .

The facts of the case indicate beyond doubt that the applicant was a tenant in the flat [ in issue ] on the basis of ORG ] ... order ... of CARDINAL DATE . As such , he has the right to buy it according to the procedure laid down in the [ Regulations ] .

It is also beyond doubt that this flat is the property of [ the applicant ’s employer ] .

In a decision of [ DATE ] the board of directors of the [ applicant ’s employer ] allowed the applicant to purchase the ORG - entity - owned housing unit he was living in .

In execution of this decision [ the applicant ’s employer ] addressed a request to the chairperson of ORG of ORG [ i.e. the mayor – see paragraph CARDINAL below ] , in which it had also indicated the buyer . Thus , all requirements of section CARDINAL of the [ Regulations ] were complied with .

In view of this state of affairs ORG should have discharged its duty under LAW ] , finalising in due form the consent already achieved between the parties and issuing the respective order .

ORG is in effect not a party to the sale agreement . The parties are the ORG entityowner [ of the flat ] and the tenant . ORG acts as an administrative authority which only approves the already concluded contract .

The tacit refusal to do so was unlawful . ”

NORP The mayor refused to comply and on DATE submitted a petition for review ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) to ORG , arguing that such an order DATE or the refusal to issue it – was not an individual administrative decision and was hence not subject to judicial review under the ORG .

The applicant filed a counterpleading , arguing , inter alia , that the dispute did not concern an ordinary sale of a NORP housing unit but a sale of a housing unit subject to the special provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of the additional provisions of LAW of DATE . The mayor ’s role was thus not that of a contracting party , as it would have been in the general case , but that of a supervising administrative authority . Once the prerequisites for effecting the sale had been met , the mayor had no discretion but to approve it . He or she could refuse to do so only if the applicant did not meet the conditions laid down by the LAW .

ORG held a hearing on DATE . The applicant ’s counsel argued that the mayor ’s petition for review had been submitted out of time . The participating prosecutor also maintained that the petition was untimely and stated that the mayor should be allowed to present evidence to prove when ORG judgment had been entered in the register . The merits of the case were not pleaded during the hearing .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG , enquiring about the date on which the latter ’s judgment had been entered in the court ’s register . ORG replied that its judgment had been entered on DATE .

In DATE ORG was divided into a ORG and a ORG . The newly formed ORG took over cases , such as the applicant ’s , in which petitions for review in administrative proceedings had been pending before the former ORG .

A threemember panel of ORG gave judgment on DATE . It held that the petition for review had been submitted within the DATE statutory time - limit and was thus admissible and continued :

“ ... The petition for review is well - founded .

In the judgment under review ORG quashed the tacit refusal of the mayor ... of GPE to enter into a contract for the sale of a ORG housing unit ... to its tenant ...

The mayor ’s decisions to enter into contracts for the sale of NORP housing units under LAW [ of DATE ] or the refusals to do so , including where the housing units have been given , for management , to ministries , other ORG entities , ORG commercial enterprises and institutions , are not administrative decisions within the meaning of section CARDINAL of the [ ORG ] . These decisions precede the execution of the bilateral transaction for transferring title to the respective property from the ORG to the individual purchaser and denote the assent of the mayor ... to the future execution of such a deal . [ The mayor ] does not , however , act as an administrative authority ; he is placed on equal footing with the private individual contracting with him . For this reason his acts in such cases fall out of the ambit of the [ ORG ] and are not subject to review under it . ...

Moreover , in view of the terms of section CARDINAL of ORG [ of DATE ] , it could not be accepted that the municipalities are bound to sell ORG housing units to the tenants settled therein . This provision sets out only the manner in which these housing units are sold and the persons who are entitled to purchase them in the event of a decision to that effect by the competent body . There is no legal obligation for the mayor to approve the sale of a ORG flat . This lack of a legal duty excludes administrative or judicial review under the [ ORG ] .

In examining the application [ for judicial review ] the [ ORG ] ORG overstepped its jurisdiction . Its judgment therefore is to be quashed , the application is to be left without examination , and the proceedings are to be discontinued . ... ”

On DATE the applicant filed a petition for review , expounding all his arguments , including those relating to the merits of the case . Later he filed additional observations . A hearing was held on DATE , at which the applicant ’s counsel argued the case and made reference to his earlier written pleadings .

On DATE a fivemember panel of ORG found the applicant ’s petition timely , but dismissed it in the following terms :

“ The threemember panel ’s judgment is wellfounded . The proceedings before ORG related to the refusal of the mayor of GPE to enter into a contract for the sale of a ORG housing unit . The holding that the decisions to enter into a contract for the sale of ORG - owned housing units in the manner prescribed in LAW [ of DATE ] or the refusals to do so , including where [ such housing units ] have been assigned to ORG entities , as in the case at hand , are not individual administrative decisions within the meaning of section CARDINAL of the ORG is correct . [ These decisions ] precede the execution of a bilateral transaction transferring title to the property from the ORG to the [ individual ] , and denote the assent of the mayor ... to the future execution of this transaction . [ The mayor ] does not act as an administrative authority ; he is placed on an equal footing vis - à - vis the private person . Therefore , his acts in such cases are not encompassed by the [ ORG ] . Acts which relate to civillaw relations , where the administrative authority and the [ person concerned ] are on an equal footing , are not individual administrative decisions within the meaning of the ORG .

The threemember panel correctly found that in view of section CARDINAL et seq . of ORG [ of DATE ] it could not be accepted that the municipalities are bound to sell ORG housing units to their occupants . This provision sets forth only the manner of selling such units , which could be purchased in the event of a decision to this effect by the competent body . There is however no legal duty for the mayor ... to assent to the sale of a ORG housing unit , and in the absence of such a legal obligation administrative or judicial review under the ORG is inadmissible . ”

Neither the threemember panel , nor the fivemember one mentioned LAW of DATE in their reasons .

This Act concerns mainly persons who have deposited money in special housing bank accounts prior to DATE ( the applicant does not fall into this category ) .

Separately , paragraph CARDINAL of the additional provisions of the LAW , dealing with the housing needs of employees of ORG entities ( „ ведомства “ ) , provided , as enacted in DATE :

“ ORG entities which own residential buildings may sell existing housing units to their employees ... provided the persons willing to purchase them meet the requirements of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . ”

Effective DATE , that text was amended to read :

“ CARDINAL . State entities ... shall , by decisions adopted by their managements after DATE and not later than CARDINAL moths after the entry into force of this amendment of the LAW , sell the existing housing units to their employees under the following terms :

( CARDINAL ) NORP employees who have applied to purchase ORG - entityowned housing units not DATE or were tenants therein before that date and who meet the requirements of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Act may purchase the units at prices set in accordance with [ previous , more favourable pricing rules ] .

( CARDINAL ) NORP employees who were settled as tenants after DATE , but before the entry of this amendment of the LAW into force , and , as of the date of issuing of the settlement order , met the requirements of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , may purchase the housing units at prices set in accordance with [ the then current pricing rules ] .

The difference between the price at which the housing units are acquired under subparagraph CARDINAL and their real value shall be borne by the [ respective ORG entity ] . ”

Points CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time , laid down certain conditions for the persons concerned to come within its purview : ( i ) that they did not own homes or country houses fit for permanent use whose value , when added to the value of the remainder of their assets , was above CARDINAL old NORP levs ( ORG ) , ( ii ) that they had not conveyed title to homes to third parties after DATE , except in cases of partition of property , and that ( iii ) the total amount of their movable and immovable assets , other than their homes and country houses , valued in accordance with the Regulations for the implementation of the LAW , was below BGL CARDINAL .

Section CARDINAL of the Regulations ( „ Правилник за прилагане на Закона за уреждане на жилищните въпроси на граждани с многогодишни жилищноспестовни влогове “ ) , which were enacted in DATE , reads :

“ The persons eligible within the meaning of the LAW are :

( CARDINAL ) tenants in housing units owned by [ ORG entities ] whose tenancies commenced before DATE ; ... ”

Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the of the additional provisions of the Regulations defines “ existing housing units ” ( the expression used in paragraph CARDINAL of the additional provisions of LAW see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) as units which have been completed not DATE ( in the cases falling under subparagraph CARDINAL ) of paragraph CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL DATE ( in the cases falling under subparagraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of paragraph CARDINAL ) .

Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the additional provisions of the ORG provides that paragraph CARDINAL of the additional provisions of the LAW does not apply to housing units which have been assigned by the municipalities to ORG entities for use and management .

By paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the additional provisions of the ORG , the decisions to sell ORG housing units are valid if they are adopted by their collective management bodies , or by the respective government minister or an official authorised by him or her .

Paragraph CARDINAL ) of the transitional and concluding provisions of the Regulations ( added in DATE ) provides that if the housing units under paragraph CARDINAL of the additional provisions of the LAW have been listed as longterm assets of ORG - owned commercial companies , the difference between the price at which they were sold and their book value has to be noted down as a reduction of these ORG capital .

The State Property Regulations of DATE ( repealed in DATE ) were adopted by ORG under section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( „ Закон за собствеността “ ) DATE which empowered it to make regulations for the “ management , use , and disposition ” of ORG property – and governed , inter alia , the procedure for selling housing units owned by the ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Their section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that where housing units , given for “ use and management ” to , inter alia , ORG entities or ORG commercial enterprises and institutions , were put up for sale , they had to be turned over to the municipality on the territory of which they were situated for effectuating the transaction .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that the sale was effected on the basis of an order of the chairperson of the executive committee of the municipal council ( after the adoption of the LAW of DATE that was the mayor ) .

Section CARDINAL dealt with the conditions for and the manner of selling of Stateowned housing units to tenants .

Before DATE , under the communist regime , State enterprises did not enjoy an independent right of property over their assets ; these assets were the property of the ORG and were only made available to them for “ use and management ” .

Under LAW of DATE ( PERSON закон “ ) and other reform legislation adopted in DATE and DATE , ORG enterprises had to be transformed , by decision of the relevant ministry and upon registration at the competent court , into singlemember limited liability companies or singleshareholder jointstock companies whose sole member or shareholder was the ORG .

The question whether the transformed enterprises became full owners of their assets or continued to be only beneficiaries of a right to “ use and manage ” them on behalf of the ORG was unclear and was still discussed in the legal theory after DATE . It was finally settled with the adoption , in DATE , of ORG and ORG of DATE ( „ Закон за държавната собственост “ и „ Закон за общинската собственост “ ) . Sections CARDINAL ) of both Acts provided that the assets of ORG or municipalityowned commercial companies were not the property of the ORG or , respectively , of the municipalities , even if they were the sole shareholder or member of such companies . In DATE ORG confirmed that this provision applied to flats previously made available for “ use and management ” to ORG enterprises which had later been transformed into commercial companies ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по PERSON № CARDINAL г. , ВАС , III о. ) .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of DATE provides :

“ CARDINAL . The courts shall review the lawfulness of the administrative authorities’ acts and decisions .

Natural and juristic persons shall have the right to seek judicial review of any administrative act or decision which affects them , save as expressly specified by statute . ”

The ORG governs the procedure for issuing administrative decisions and for judicial review of such decisions . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG defines “ individual administrative decisions ” as “ decisions issued [ by public authorities ] , which create rights or obligations for , or affect the rights or the legitimate interests of , individuals or juristic persons , as well as the refusals to issue such decisions ” . By sections CARDINAL of the ORG , all “ administrative decisions ” , save those relating to the national security or specifically enumerated by statute , are subject to judicial review .

In this interpretative judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE in constitutional case no . CARDINAL ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. по PERSON № DATE г. , обн. GPE , бр. CARDINAL от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. ) ORG gave a binding interpretation of LAW . It held , inter alia , that this provision encompassed all administrative decisions regardless of their character or theoretical qualification . The exclusion of a given administrative decision from judicial review could only be done by statute . “ All administrative decisions ” meant “ without exception ” . Only internal decisions which did not affect in any way physical or juristic persons outside the respective administration were not covered by the constitutional provision .

Until DATE section CARDINAL of the ORG provided that the regional courts’ judgments on applications for judicial review of administrative decisions were final and could be set aside only in accordance with LAW seq . of LAW DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) .

Articles DATE of the ORG , repealed with effect from DATE , governed review proceedings before the former ORG . Prior to DATE these texts stipulated that review proceedings were initiated on the proposal of ORG or the chairperson of ORG , which was not , as a rule , limited by time , and was examined in private by a section of ORG or its Plenary .

However , these texts were fully reshuffled with effect from DATE and henceforth provided that review proceedings were initiated upon the petition of a party to the case ( LAW ) , lodged within DATE after the entry into force of the lower court ’s judgment ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) , or the proposal of ORG ( LAW ) , lodged within DATE after the judgment ’s entry into force ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . A petition for review did not have suspensive effect , but ORG could , on the application of the petitioning party , order a stay of the enforcement of the lower court ’s judgment in case such enforcement would cause irreparable harm to the petitioning party ( LAW ) . The petition was examined by ORG at a public hearing in the presence of the parties to the case ( LAW ) . ORG had the power to set the judgment aside wholly or in part , whenever ( i ) it was “ contrary to the law ” , ( ii ) “ substantial breaches of procedural law [ had ] occurred during the proceedings or in connection with the delivery of the judgment ” , or ( iii ) it was “ illfounded ” ( LAW in conjunction with LAW ) . If ORG set the lower court ’s judgment aside , it could either decide the case itself , or exceptionally remit it to the lower court for reexamination ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( h ) of the ORG , adopted in DATE and in force since DATE , provides that an interested party may request the reopening of civil proceedings in case a “ judgment of ORG has found a violation of the [ Convention ] ” . By DATE of the ORG and LAW ) of ORG ( „ Закон за върховния административен съд “ ) , this provision is applicable to proceedings in administrative cases as well . ORG has already had occasion to use it to reopen proceedings resulting in a ruling that the courts had no jurisdiction to examine an application for judicial review of an administrative decision ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; and реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE г. по PERSON № CARDINAL г. , PERSON , петчленен състав ) .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , Mr Rumen PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Ahtopol . He was represented by Mr M. Ekimdjiev , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant obtained construction rights over a plot of municipal land in GPE , the municipality of PERSON ( formerly GPE ) . In accordance with the relevant law as in force at the time , the municipal authorities issued an order granting construction rights and also entered into a contract with the applicant . The surface of the plot was QUANTITY . The price was set at CARDINAL “ old ” NORP levs ( ORG ) , which the applicant paid on DATE . At that time LAW was the equivalent of CARDINAL average DATE salaries in the country .

The contract stipulated , inter alia , that the applicant ’s right to construct a building would expire in the event of his failing to complete the building within DATE .

The applicant hired an architect and on DATE he obtained a building permit for a CARDINAL - storey house of QUANTITY to be constructed on the plot . The applicant also purchased construction material , transported it to PERSON and stored it there .

On an unspecified date in DATE the municipal building authorities refused to authorise the commencement of the construction works as the technician who had visited the site had noted that a high - voltage electricity conduit passed over the plot .

It appears that during the same period persons claiming rights over neighbouring plots obstructed the applicant ’s preparations for the construction of his house . In DATE the applicant brought an action against them , seeking damages . The municipality of PERSON was summoned as a third party . By judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim against the neighbours , noting that the impossibility for the applicant to realise his project was only imputable to the municipality which had sold him construction rights over the plot in disregard of the fact that constructing a building there was not allowed owing to the passage of a high - voltage electricity conduit .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant wrote to the municipality asking them to provide him with another plot . He allegedly received assurances that that would be done later .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE the local land commission ordered the restitution of the land on which the applicant had obtained construction rights to the heirs of the person who had owned it prior to the collectivisation of agricultural land in GPE in DATE .

In DATE the applicant travelled to GPE and started working there .

On DATE the mayor of PERSON issued an order cancelling the applicant ’s construction rights .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought an action against the municipality of PERSON seeking restitution of the price paid by him under the DATE contract and damages for breach of contract . Initially he claimed BGL CARDINAL . On DATE he increased the claim to ORG CARDINAL .

By a judgment of DATE ORG partially granted the claim . On an appeal by the applicant , on DATE the ORG increased the award . The final judgment was that of ORG of DATE , which upheld ORG judgment .

The courts found , inter alia , that the PERSON municipality had breached the DATE contract with the applicant in that it had granted him construction rights over a plot which could not be built over and had failed to remedy that situation despite his complaints . It followed that the municipality was liable to pay all ensuing damages . The applicant had proven the alleged losses in respect of the price paid by him in DATE to the municipality ( LAW ) , the architect ’s fees paid by him in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL ) and the expenses incurred by him in DATE for the transport of construction material ( BGL CARDINAL ) .

The remainder of his claims , which concerned alleged loss of profits , were dismissed as unproven . The applicant had stated that in normal circumstances he would have completed the house within DATE and would have rented it DATE during DATE . The courts found that the applicant had not substantiated the alleged loss of profits . He had relied solely on information about average property and rental prices at the relevant time .

The amount awarded to the applicant was thus BGL CARDINAL plus interest . Owing to the depreciation of the NORP currency , by DATE , when the award became enforceable , it represented , together with all interest accrued , the equivalent of not QUANTITY ( ORG ) .

In his appeals before ORG and ORG the applicant protested that the courts had awarded him sums which had become worthless . He insisted that the award should be commensurate to the value of the actual damage he had sustained .

In reply to those arguments the courts stated that in accordance with the relevant law and established practice the applicant was entitled to compensation for the actual damage suffered at the time when it was occasioned .

In DATE the applicant submitted a claim in which , in confused terms , he sought a declaration that the mayor ’s order of CARDINAL DATE was null and void and also requested compensation . The courts interpreted the claim as an action for a declaration of nullity and rejected it as unfounded by final decision of DATE .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and was serving his prison sentence at the PERSON prison at the time of the application . He was represented before the ORG by Mr Güney ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of theft of electronic materials from his place of work .

On DATE he was brought before the public prosecutor and ORG . The applicant denied the accusations against him . He was conditionally released .

On CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant for theft and requested that he be convicted and sentenced under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police and placed in prison to purge his sentence .

On DATE the judgment of ORG was sent to the registry of ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative filed a petition with ORG and requested the re - opening of the proceedings and the suspension of the execution of the applicant ’s sentence , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . In the aforementioned petition , the applicant ’s representative stated , inter alia , the following :

“ The convict , ORG , has been convicted on DATE of theft ... On DATE ORG upheld the judgment ( merits no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , judgment no.CARDINAL ) ... ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objections , against which decision the applicant ’s representative again objected .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the objections of the applicant .

The applicant asked the Minister of ORG to issue a written order dismissing the judgment of ORG .

On DATE the Minister of Justice informed the PERSON public prosecutor that the request of the applicant had been refused .

On DATE the wife of the applicant requested a copy of the judgment of ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative before ORG filed a petition with ORG and asked whether the judgment of ORG had been notified to the applicant or his lawyer .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s representative that the judgment of DATE had not been notified to the applicant or his lawyer .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG issued a bill of indictment against the applicant on charges of drug trafficking , unlawful possession of firearms and membership of an organised criminal gang . There were CARDINAL accused and CARDINAL witnesses in the case .

On DATE ORG held a first hearing in the case . From that date to DATE the court scheduled CARDINAL hearings in the case . During that period of time the court held CARDINAL and CARDINAL hearings .

On DATE the GPE ORG gave judgment in the case convicting the applicant . The applicant appealed .

The proceedings are currently pending before ORG .

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 ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . He also claimed just satisfaction in the amount of FAC CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG dismissed the length complaint . Although the court found that the proceedings had lasted a very long time , it concluded that this had not amounted to an “ excessive length ” as defined by LAW . ORG pointed out that the court had scheduled CARDINAL hearings in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE . However , several hearings had had to be postponed because defence lawyers , co - accused and witnesses were absent and assessors and judges were ill .

On DATE the applicant lodged another complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG again dismissed the length complaint . The court found that the proceedings had been handled properly and the delays had been attributable to other persons and unexpected circumstances rather than to the court . ORG pointed out that since DATE the court had held CARDINAL hearings and CARDINAL hearings had had to be postponed because defence lawyers and experts had been absent , assessors , a judge and certain co - accused had been ill , renovation works had been carried out in the hearing room and there had been a shortage of police officers to convey the accused to the court . ORG acknowledged that the proceedings were of a complex character and noted that the court had taken many appropriate steps in order to speed them up .

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 . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-V and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII and the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V.