7.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Gdańsk. 8.  In June 1993 the counsel for H.K. (“the petitioner”) filed with the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court (“the court”) a petition to dissolve joint ownership of a certain property, belonging to H.K. and K.K. who owned four fifths of it , and to M.S., who owned one fifth. On 6 July 1993 the court returned the statement of the claim as H.K. had failed to pay the court fees. On 8 July 1993 she requested the court to exempt her from the court fees. On 14 July 1993 the court allowed her request. 9.  The first hearing in the case was held on 10 September 1993. At the hearing H.K. requested the court to summon W.S., the applicant and J.S., who were successors of the late M.S. as parties to the case. 10.  On 14 December 1993 and on 31 January 1994 the applicant filed her pleadings with the court. 11.  On 20 December 1993 the court stayed the proceedings on the ground of the petitioner’s failure to indicate service addresses of certain of the parties. On 2 February 1994 the petitioner requested the court to resume the proceedings. On 4 February 1994 the court allowed this motion. 12.  On 22 March 1994 the second hearing was held before the court. The applicant was absent. The hearing was adjourned until 26 April 1994. 13.  At the hearing held on 26 April 1994 the court heard the petitioner and the applicant. The parties were given a fourteen-day time-limit to state their position with respect to H.K.’s petition to have the property divided, and also to submit their comments on the division proposal. The hearing was adjourned until 24 June 1994. 14.  On 6 May 1994 the court received the applicant’s letter expressing her position as regards the petition. 15.  On 24 June 1994 the court held another hearing. The applicant was absent. The court heard K.K. and granted the parties seven days to submit motions for any evidence to be taken. The hearing was adjourned until 6 September 1994. 16.  On 17 August and 6 September 1994 the applicant filed her further pleadings with the court. 17.  The applicant did not attend the hearing held on 6 September 1994. The court informed the parties about her pleadings. In view of their large volume and failure to produce copies for the other parties, the court ordered the applicant to provide it with the necessary number of copies and granted the other parties seven days to comment on her pleadings. The hearing was adjourned until 3 November 1994, but the court decided to inspect the property on 14 October 1994. 18.  On 15 September 1994 J.S. informed the court that he wished to be paid off by H.K. and K.K. and that he gave up his claim for the physical division of the property. 19.  On 27 September 1994 the petitioner’s counsel replied to the applicant’s pleadings, submitting that in almost all of her pleadings she had insulted the court and the parties. Moreover, she had alleged that all the witnesses were lying, even though no witnesses had been heard so far. On the whole, she had made no valuable contribution to the proceedings and had not adduced any evidence. Subsequently, K.K.’s counsel commented in a similar way on the applicant’s conduct. 20.  On 30 September and 11 October 1994 the applicant filed further pleadings with the court. 21.  On 14 October 1994 the court inspected the property in issue and heard two witnesses. 22.  On 21 October 1994 the applicant filed further pleadings with the court. 23.  At the hearing held on 3 November 1994 the applicant was again absent. The court heard evidence from three witnesses and adjourned the hearing until 21 December 1994. 24.  On 10 November 1994 the petitioner’s counsel requested the court to interview a further six witnesses. On 28 November 1994 the applicant filed further pleadings with the court. 25.  On 30 November 1994 the court heard evidence from one witness. 26.  The applicant was present at the next hearing in the instant case, which was held on 20 December 1994. At her request the court swore in two witnesses before it heard them. The hearing was adjourned until 27 January 1995. 27.  On 5 January 1995 the applicant filed another set of pleadings with the court. 28.  On 27 January 1995 the court held the next hearing. The applicant was absent. The court heard one witness and adjourned the hearing until 3 March 1995. 29.  On 20 February 1995 the applicant proposed in her pleadings that the property be divided into two equal parts, one for her and her father W.S. and the second for the petitioner H.K. and the party K.K. On 1 March 1995 the petitioner H.K. filed with the court her proposal as to the physical division of the property. 30.  The next hearing was held on 3 March 1995. The court granted the parties seven days within which to comment on both proposals and adjourned the hearing until 4 April 1995. 31.  On 15 March 1995 the petitioner submitted to the court that the applicant, together with her father, owned 2/15 of the property in question and the division proposed by her would be unjustified. On 23, 25 and 28 March 1995 the applicant filed her further pleadings with the court. 32.  On 4 April 1995 the court held the next hearing. 33.  In view of the applicant’s absence, and that of her father W.S. and J.S., the court decided to ask the Gdańsk District Court and the Gdynia District Court for their assistance in interviewing the witnesses. It also decided to appoint the expert J.G. to prepare an opinion as to whether it was possible to divide the property between the petitioner and other parties, including the one-fifth share belonging to W.S., the applicant and J.S. On 18 April 1995 the court prepared a list of questions to be asked by the Gdańsk and Gdynia courts. On 11 May 1995 the court requested the Gdynia District Court to question J.S. and enclosed the list of questions to be put to him. On the same day the court requested the Gdynia District Court to hear the applicant and her father W.S. 34.  On 22 May 1995 the court sent the case-file to the expert J.G. and ordered him to prepare the opinion within one month. The expert submitted his report on 23 June 1995. He stated that it was possible to divide the property between the petitioner and K.K., but that physical separation of one-fifth of the property was not possible since there would be no access to the parts thus formed. 35.  On 29 May 1995 the Gdańsk District Court fixed the date for hearing the applicant and her father, as decided on 11 May 1995 (see above), for 26 June 1995. On that date the Gdańsk District Court heard the applicant, but in view of the absence of her father who was also to be interviewed, and at the applicant’s request, the court decided to interview him at home. On 7 September 1995 the Gdańsk Court interviewed the applicant’s father W.S. at his home. The court ascertained that W.S. was unable to answer any questions and did not remember any facts relevant to the case. The Gdańsk District Court then decided to return the file to the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court. 36.  On 12 June 1995 the Gdynia District Court held a hearing to which J. S. was to be summoned to give evidence. J.S. failed to comply with the summons. The Gdynia District Court adjourned the hearing until 13 July 1995. 37.  On 5 July 1995 the applicant filed pleadings with the court, maintaining her proposal of dividing the property into two equal parts, as she had submitted on 20 February 1995. 38.  On 10 July 1995 the petitioner’s counsel agreed in general with the expert’s conclusions that it was possible to divide the property in question, but proposed a different manner of division and therefore requested the court to summon the expert to the hearing. 39.  At the hearing held before the Gdynia District Court on 13 July 1995 J.S. was present but the petitioner H.K. and the party K.K. were absent. The District Court therefore adjourned the hearing until 18 September 1995. On 18 September 1995 none of the parties appeared before the District Court despite the fact that they had been properly summoned. The hearing was adjourned until 30 October 1995. 40.  On 20 October 1995 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court held a hearing. The court considered that in view of the forthcoming hearing in Gdynia the hearing should be adjourned until 5 December 1995. The court also decided to summon the expert J.G. to that hearing. On 23 October 1995 the court enquired of the Gdynia District Court about the outcome of the assistance proceedings before the latter court. 41.  Subsequently, the hearing fixed for 30 October 1995, which was to be held before the Gdynia District Court, was rescheduled for 29 November 1995 since the presiding judge had fallen ill. On 29 November 1995 the parties failed to attend the session of the Gdynia District Court. The session was adjourned until 7 February 1996. 42.  In a letter of 1 December 1995 the expert J.G. informed the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court that he was unable to attend the hearing on 5 December 1995 for professional reasons. The next hearing was held before the court on 5 December 1995. During that hearing the petitioner H.K. lodged a motion claiming acquisitive prescription of one-fifth of the property in question. The court adjourned the hearing. 43.  On 8 December 1995 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court again enquired of the Gdynia District Court about the execution of its request to hear evidence from J.S. On 14 December 1995 the latter court replied that, owing to the absence of the parties, the session at which they were to be interviewed had been adjourned until 7 February 1996. 44.  On 8 January 1996 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court decided to return the petitioner’s motion for acquisitive prescription since the formal shortcomings had not been rectified within the time allowed. 45.  On 26 January 1996 the court held the next hearing. The court heard the expert J.G. and allowed him to prepare a supplementary opinion, as the petitioner H.K. had proposed to divide the property in a different way. The court adjourned the hearing until 19 March 1996. During that time the expert was to inspect the property and prepare an opinion about the possibility of the division of the property in the manner proposed by the petitioner. On 31 January 1996 the case-file was sent to the expert. 46.  On 7 February 1996 the persons summoned to attend the session to be held before the Gdynia District Court failed to do so. The Gdynia District Court subsequently decided to return the request to the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court, having been unable to execute it fully. 47.  On 26 February 1996 the expert J.S. submitted his opinion to the court. 48.  On the same day the applicant filed with the court her reply to the petitioner’s motion for acquisitive prescription. She requested the court to dismiss the application. On 8 March 1996 the applicant submitted to the court her position regarding the expert’s supplementary opinion. 49.  On 21 March 1996 the petitioner requested the court not to arrange any hearings between 8 and 22 May 996 since she had to take care of her sick mother. Thus, the hearing fixed for 20 May 1996 was rescheduled. On 11 April 1996 the petitioner H.K. submitted to the court her comments on the expert’s opinion. 50.  On 12 April 1996 the next hearing was held. Having regard to the death of the applicant’s father W.S., the court stayed the proceedings under Article 174 § 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 23 May 1996 the applicant enquired of the court about the course of the proceedings. On 10 June 1996 the applicant provided the court with her father’s will, declaring her to be his only successor. 51.  On 19 September 1996 the applicant requested the Court to resume the proceedings and to order the Gdańsk District Court to hear her. 52.  On 23 September 1996 the court resumed the proceedings under Article 180 § 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, on 7 October 1996 the applicant informed the court that the proceedings to establish W.S.’s heirs were still pending before the Gdańsk District Court. In view of this, on 7 October 1996 the court again stayed the proceedings under Article 177 § 1 (1) CCP. 53.  On 30 December 1996 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings in the instant case. She submitted a decision of the Gdańsk District Court in the inheritance case. She also requested the court to secure her claim since she was afraid that the party K.K. would sell his share in the property. On the same day the court ordered the applicant to produce the factual grounds for her request. On 30 December 1996 the court resumed the proceedings. The applicant complied with the court’s order on 15 January 1997 and on 3 February 1997 the court dismissed the applicant’s request to have her claim secured by way of an interlocutory decision. On 12 February 1997 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 21 February 1997 the applicant requested the court for leave to pay the court fee for the appeal in two instalments. The court regarded that as a request to be exempted from the court fee and ordered her to provide details regarding her financial situation. On 28 February 1997 the court received the information ordered and on the same day it exempted her from the fee. 54.  On 11 March 1997 the court held the next hearing. The applicant was not present at that hearing, but submitted a medical certificate concerning her poor state of health, which made it impossible for her to participate in any further hearings. As the witnesses summoned were absent, the court adjourned the hearing until 29 April 1997. 55.  On 17 March 1997 the case-file was transferred to the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal of 12 February 1997. On 26 March 1997 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court dismissed her appeal. On 3 April 1997 the case-file was received at the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court. 56.  In a letter of 21 April 1997 the Gdynia District Court requested the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court to provide it with the current address of J.S. since he had moved. On 5 May 1997 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court complied with that request. 57.  In a letter of 24 April 1997 the expert J.G. informed the court that he was unable to attend the hearing to be held on 29 April 1997. 58.  The court held the next hearing on 29 April 1997. The petitioner maintained her motion for acquisitive prescription, the party K.K. joined that motion and the court heard four witnesses and adjourned the hearing until 15 July 1997. 59.  On 8 May 1997 the Gdynia District Court transmitted the request of the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court to hear J.S. to the Kwidzyń District Court, which was competent ratione loci. 60.  In a letter of 28 May 1997 the applicant asked the court whether it was necessary for her to be present at the hearing on 15 July 1997. On 2 June 1997 the court replied that her presence was indeed necessary since it intended to question the parties to the proceedings. On 2 July 1997 the applicant applied to the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court to request the Gdańsk District Court to interview her, invoking her bad health. 61.  On 15 July 1997 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court held the next hearing. The court heard evidence from the expert J.G. As the Kwidzyń District Court had not interviewed J.S., the court decided not to give a preliminary ruling and adjourned the hearing until 9 September 1997. In the meantime the court was to ask the Kwidzyń Court about progress in carrying out the request to interview J.S. 62.  On 24 July 1997 the applicant again requested the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court that she be questioned before the Gdansk Court. 63.  On 9 September 1997 another hearing was held before the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court. The court decided to give a preliminary ruling in the near future, concerning the claim for acquisitive prescription. 64.  On 15 September 1997 the Kwidzyń District Court held a session at which J.S. was present. However, in view of the absence of all the other parties to the proceedings, the court decided to adjourn the session until 29 September 1997 and on 19 September 1997 it informed the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court accordingly. Having regard thereto, the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court decided on 23 September 1997 to reopen the hearing and to adjourn it until 29 October 1997. 65.  On 29 September 1997 J.S. failed to attend the session to be held before the Kwidzyn District Court. The court, accordingly, had to adjourn the hearing again until 16 October 1997. On 16 October 1997 the Kwidzyń District Court finally interviewed J.S. 66.  The next hearing before the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court was held on 28 October 1997. The petitioner H.K. and the party K.K. upheld their motion for acquisitive prescription. The court decided to adjourn the hearing and to give a preliminary ruling on 7 November 1997. 67.  On 7 November 1997 the court gave a preliminary ruling declaring that the petitioner H.K. and the party K.K. had acquired one-fifth of the property in question by way of acquisitive prescription. 68.  On 27 November 1997 the applicant asked the court whether the proceedings had come to an end. On the same day the court informed the applicant about the ruling it had given on 7 November 1997. On 9 December 1997 the applicant requested the court to provide her with written reasons for that ruling and to restore the time-limit for lodging an appeal against it. On 11 December 1997 the court restored the time-limit and on 10 April 1998 the court received the applicant’s appeal against the preliminary ruling of 7 November 1997. 69.  On 17 April 1998 the court ordered the applicant to provide it with a statement concerning her financial situation. The applicant provided the relevant information on 24 April 1998 and on 27 April 1998 the court exempted the applicant from the fee for her appeal. 70.  On 13 May 1998 the case-file was received by the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court, which was to examine the applicant’s appeal against the preliminary ruling on the merits of the case. A hearing was held on 28 May 1998. On 4 June 1998 the Regional Court quashed the preliminary ruling given on 7 November 1997 by the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court and remitted this part of the case for re‑examination. On 7 July 1998 the case-file was served on the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court. 71.  On 26 October 1998 the applicant informed the court that she would not be present at the hearing scheduled for 30 October 1998 owing to her bad health. On that day the court adjourned the hearing until 4 December 1998 as no party attended it. 72.  On 25 November 1998 the applicant informed the court that she would not attend the hearing fixed for 4 December 1998 due to her ill health. 73.  On 4 December 1998 the court held the next hearing. The court granted the petitioner and the party K.K. fourteen days within which to produce the building permit concerning the property. On 9 December 1998 the applicant requested the Court to provide her with a copy of that decision. 74.  On 31 December 1998 the petitioner informed the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court that the building permit could probably be found in the Piotrków Trybunalski Division of the State Archives and requested the court to contact that institution in order to obtain it. On 19 January 1999 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court requested the State Archives to provide it with the copy of the permit. On 25 January 1999 the State Archives informed the court that it did not have the copy of the document requested. 75.  The next hearing was held before the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court on 9 February 1999. One of the parties informed the court that the building permit could probably be found in the bank, which had granted the loan for the construction of the house. The court decided to grant the party fourteen days to produce the permit. On 16 February 1999 the court requested the Gdańsk District Court to hear the applicant. On 1 March 1999 the Gdańsk District Court fixed the hearing for 27 April 1999. On 27 April 1999 the Gdańsk District Court interviewed the applicant as requested. 76.  The next hearing before the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court was fixed for 3 August 1999. By a letter of 13 July 1999 the applicant informed the court that she would not be present at the hearing for health reasons. 77.  At the hearing held on 3 August 1999 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court decided to request the Gdańsk District Court to interview the applicant again since on 27 April 1999 she had been questioned as a witness and not as a party to the proceedings. The hearing was adjourned until 15 September 1999. On 4 August 1999 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court requested the Gdańsk District Court to interview the applicant. 78.  The next hearing before the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court was held on 15 September 1999. It was adjourned as the parties failed to attend. The court adjourned the hearing until 20 October 1999. 79.  The Gdańsk District Court interviewed the applicant on 24 September 1999. 80.  On 22 October 1999 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court contacted the Piotrków Trybunalski and the Tomaszów Mazowiecki Divisions of the State Archives requesting them to provide a copy of the building permit. On 2 November 1999 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki Division provided the court with a copy of the building permit. 81.  On 4 November 1999 the applicant informed the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court that she would not be able, for health reasons, to attend the hearing fixed for 19 November 1999. 82.  On 19 November 1999 the court held the next hearing. In the absence of confirmation that counsel for one of the parties had been properly summoned by post the court adjourned the hearing until 10 December 1999. 83.  In a letter of 7 December 1999 J.S. and his counsel informed the court that they joined the petition of H.K. and K.K. for acquisitive prescription and would not be present at the next hearing. 84.  The next hearing was held on 8 December 1999. No party, except the participant K.K., was present and the court adjourned the hearing until 12 January 2000. 85.  On 7 January 2000 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court rescheduled the hearing from 12 to 24 January 2000 for organisational reasons concerning the court. 86.  On 24 January 2000 the court held a hearing. The court heard the petitioner H.K. and the party K.K. The part of the hearing regarding the petition for acquisitive prescription was closed and the court decided to give a preliminary ruling on 4 February 2000. However, on 4 February 2000 the Court decided to postpone the ruling until 7 February 2000. 87.  On 7 February 2000, following certain information provided by J.S., the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court reopened the hearing and adjourned it until 29 February 2000. The court also ordered the applicant to state her position regarding information provided by J.S. On 14 February 2000 the applicant submitted relevant pleadings. 88.  At the hearing on 29 February 2000 the parties stated that the applicant’s pleadings of 14 February 2000 contained statements insulting to both living and dead members of their families and added nothing relevant to the case. The petitioner and K.K. maintained their application for acquisitive prescription. The court closed the part of the hearing relating to that claim and adjourned the giving of the preliminary ruling until 6 March 2000. On that day the court dismissed the motion for acquisitive prescription. On 9 March 2000 K. K. requested the court to give written grounds for that decision. 89.  On 4 April 2000 the applicant filed with the court her pleadings relating to the written reasons for the decision of 6 March 2000. 90.  The next hearing was held before the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court on 5 July 2000. The court adjourned the hearing until 3 August 2000. However, as the petitioner’s counsel was on holiday, the hearing was subsequently rescheduled for 12 September 2000. On 5 July 2000 the petitioner H.K. requested the court to secure her claim and on 8 August 2000 she supplemented her request with factual circumstances justifying it. On 13 July 2000 the applicant informed the court that she would not be able to participate in the hearing fixed for 12 September 2000, owing to ill health. 91.  On 1 September 2000 the applicant applied to have her share of the property (two-thirds of one-fifth) entered in the land and mortgage register and to be paid off by H.K. and K.K. At the next hearing held on 12 September 2000 the petitioner withdrew her motion for securing the claim and maintained her application for physical division of the property. K.K. joined the latter motion. The court adjourned the hearing until 5 October 2000. 92.  On 22 September 2000 the applicant informed the court that for health reasons she would not be able to participate in the hearing fixed for 5 October 2000. 93.  During the hearing held on 5 October 2000 H.K. and K.K. informed the court about the possibility of a settlement in respect of movable parts of the property. The court adjourned the hearing until 9 November 2000 and ordered the applicant to adduce any evidence she possessed, since in her earlier pleading she had maintained that she had had some additional evidence at her disposal. The applicant replied on 25 October 2000. 94.  The hearing fixed for 9 November 2000 was adjourned at the request of the petitioner’s counsel, invoking the petitioner’s ill health. On 27 December 2000 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court fixed the next hearing for 8 January 2001. 95.  On 4 January 2001 the applicant informed the court that she would not be able to participate in that hearing for reasons of ill health and advanced age. At the hearing held on 8 January 2001 the petitioner H.K. and the party informed the court about the friendly settlement regarding movable parts of the property, which had been concluded. Therefore the petitioner’s claim became limited to her application for physical division of the real estate. The parties accepted the proposal of the division prepared by the expert. The Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court decided to appoint an expert in evaluation of real property. 96.  Subsequently, the expert submitted her report and was questioned by the court on 2 July 2001. 97.  On 4 January 2002 the Gdańsk District Court again interviewed the applicant, at the request of the Tomaszów Mazowiecki Court. 98.  The next hearing was held on 18 December 2002. 99.  The proceedings are pending.


8.  The applicant, who had lived for a while in the United States of America, was suspected of drug trafficking and a warrant for his arrest was issued by the United States police in January 1996. 9.  Following the request of the United States authorities, on 15 August 1997 the public prosecutor asked the Skopje Municipal Court to institute a preliminary investigation against the applicant on charges that between January 1992 and May 1995 he had smuggled around 10.5 kg of drugs from Bulgaria and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United States and that for that purpose had set up a drug-trafficking network involving also his son, who lives in the United States. The prosecution’s request set out the names of the persons involved and against whom criminal proceedings were pending or completed in the United States and asked for their questioning. 10.  On 30 September 1997 the investigating judge opened a criminal investigation against the applicant, decided to hear the witnesses proposed by the prosecution and detained the applicant on remand. 11.  On 1 October 1997 the investigating judge asked the Ministry of Justice to contact the United States government and to request their assistance in the hearing of some witnesses in their country. On 10 October 1997 the Ministry of Justice addressed the request to the United States embassy. 12.  On 7 November 1997 the United States embassy was informed by the investigating judge of the investigation pending against the applicant. The notice contained the names of the witnesses to be examined in the United States and a list of fifteen questions to be put to them. 13.  On 28 November 1997 the applicant’s lawyer was informed that the investigating judge would go to the United States one week later and was summoned to the hearing. 14.  On 1 December 1997 the lawyer was denied a visa for the United States on the ground that he had not produced all the relevant documents required. The United States embassy informed him that it would review his application for a visa provided that he submitted a certificate of his working position, income, and seniority and evidence that he owned real estate and had family ties in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The lawyer never reapplied for a visa. On 2 December 1997 the applicant withdrew his power of attorney. 15.  On 3 December 1997 the applicant appointed another lawyer, who, on the same day, was summoned to attend the hearing of witnesses in the United States, scheduled for 8 December 1997. On the summons, the lawyer placed his signature in the space provided for the bailiff’s signature and the bailiff placed his signature in the space provided for the lawyer’s signature. 16.  On 4 December 1997 the applicant was questioned. He stated that he had been informed by the investigating judge that witnesses would be heard in the United States. He had contacted his second lawyer and left to him the decision whether or not to attend the hearing. He further stated that the expenses for the trip would not be a problem as he had sufficient funds to cover them. 17.  On the same day the investigating judge informed the United States embassy in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that on 28 November 1997 the applicant’s first lawyer had been summoned to attend the questioning of the witnesses in the United States and that the applicant’s second lawyer had declared that there was no need to attend the questioning and that he had insufficient funds to meet the travel expenses. 18.  On 8 and 9 December 1997, five witnesses were heard by the investigating judge in the presence of the public prosecutor and the court interpreter. Their testimonies were recorded. The witnesses were involved in the drug-trafficking network organised by the applicant, and they were all serving prison sentences in the United States for drug trafficking. 19.  According to the witnesses, who were under oath and were heard separately, it was the applicant who had set up the entire network and who had organised the smuggling into the United States and the re-sale there of approximately 10.5 kg of drugs. The applicant had contacts in Bulgaria, from where he would smuggle the drugs into the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. He would then arrange for them to be smuggled into the United States. Some of the witnesses stated that they had smuggled the drugs in a plaster-cast which the applicant would wrap around one of their legs, as though it were broken. On their arrival in the United States they would hand over the drugs to the applicant’s son in return for payment. Some of the witnesses stated that they had had an agreement with the applicant and his son for drug dealing and had been supplied with the drugs in the applicant’s and his son’s house. 20.  Two of the witnesses who had travelled to Bulgaria on separate occasions gave evidence that they had been taken into Mr Robert M.’s flat in Bulgaria, where Mr Robert M. and the applicant had wrapped plasters with drugs around one of the witnesses’ legs. None of the witnesses made any statement regarding Mr Angel B. 21.  On 22 December 1997 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant with drug trafficking from Bulgaria and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the United States and with setting up an international network for that purpose. The witnesses’ statements were included in the indictment.
On 29 December 1997 the applicant was released. 22.  On 1 January 1998 the applicant made a submission to the Municipal Court that there was no case to answer as there was no convincing evidence against him. In particular, the indictment was predominantly based on the testimonies of the witnesses who were serving prison sentences in the United States and who had not been cross-examined by the defence. The applicant argued that the witnesses had a deal with the United States authorities to have their sentences reduced in exchange for their cooperation. On the one hand, since they had already been convicted in the United States, the witnesses were aware that they would not risk anything if they gave false evidence, as they could not be prosecuted for drug trafficking under the law of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. On the other hand, if they modified their testimonies, they ran the risk of losing all the benefits which had been agreed upon by the authorities. 23.  On 12 January 1998 the court held that on the basis of all the evidence in the case there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant might have committed the offence with which he had been charged and refused to terminate the criminal proceedings against him. 24.  On 13 January 1998 a hearing was held before the Skopje Municipal Court. On 22 January 1998 a second hearing was held. The applicant claimed to be innocent and stated that he had not travelled to the United States because he knew that it might be dangerous for him.
Photographs showing the plaster-cast, belonging to a person involved in the drug dealing with the applicant, in which drugs had been found, photographs of the witnesses, reports on the search of the applicant’s son’s and another witness’s flat where some drugs had been found and the reports on the investigation in connection with the applicant’s son and his pre-trial detention were, inter alia, examined. 25.  The applicant complained that he had been unable to cross-examine the witnesses. He also objected to their statements being read out in open court.
The court decided to read out in open court the statements of the witnesses examined in the United States, because “to secure the attendance of the witnesses is extremely difficult and there are also other important reasons”.
The applicant challenged the witnesses’ statements without pointing out concretely why they should not be considered trustworthy, or specifying the questions that he would have liked to be put to the witnesses. 26.  At the hearing of 22 January 1998 the applicant requested that two additional witnesses for the defence be examined. The record of the hearing states as follows:
“... the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to gather information about Mr Robert M., in particular regarding his place of residence, whether Mr Robert M. was charged with being one of the co-organisers [of the drug trafficking] with the accused, [and if so] to obtain his case file, and to call him as a witness.
He also called the witness, Mr Angel B., from the village of Kompliven, Bulgaria, to give evidence on whether he knew the accused and Mr Robert M., whether he had ever been in Mr Robert M.’s flat with the accused, whether he knew if the accused had been supplied with drugs (amphetamines), whether he knew some of the prosecution witnesses, etc. ...”
The Skopje Municipal Court refused the motion on the ground that “the court [had] sufficient evidence before it to reach its verdict”. 27.  On 26 January 1998 the municipal court found the applicant guilty of drug trafficking within the meaning of Article 255 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The court dismissed the applicant’s objection that there had been a breach of his right of defence in that he had been unable to cross-examine the witnesses, on the ground that it had been impossible to summon them. It considered the witnesses’ statements reliable, since they had had no opportunity to make a deal with the public prosecutor of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to have their sentences in the United States reduced in exchange for giving evidence against the applicant. The court further observed that all the witnesses had recognised the applicant on a photo and that, although each of them had been heard separately by the investigating judge in the presence of the public prosecutor, their statements were consistent and precise. The court also had regard to the applicant’s testimony. 28.  On 26 February 1998 the public prosecutor submitted an appeal to the Skopje Court of Appeal (Апелационен суд) requesting an increase of the sentence in view of the nature of the offence committed, the degree of danger to the public, the fact that it concerned organised crime at international level and the fact that the applicant was a habitual offender. 29.  On 6 March 1998 the applicant also filed an appeal with the Skopje Court of Appeal, complaining, inter alia, that the lower court had infringed the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 6 of the Convention, as it had reached its verdict only on the basis of the statements of witnesses whom he had not cross-examined. The applicant further complained about the court’s refusal to hear two additional witnesses on his behalf. 30.  On 20 May 1998 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the ground that the Municipal Court had acted in accordance with Article 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stated that witnesses might be heard in the absence of the accused or his lawyer if there was a valid reason making it impossible or extremely difficult to do otherwise (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).
The court found that the lower court had given a reasoned explanation why it was extremely difficult to cross-examine those witnesses at the public hearing. They had been heard only by the investigating judge and the public prosecutor, but the legal representatives of the applicant had been duly summoned for the examination of the witnesses and, therefore, had had a sufficient opportunity to attend the witnesses’ questioning.
It held that the statements were consistent and logical and were corroborated by each other and by other evidence such as the reports from the searches carried out in the flat of the applicant’s son and of another witness. It also held that the two witnesses called by the defence were not relevant as they would not have contributed much to the establishment of the truth.
The court granted the public prosecutor’s appeal and increased the applicant’s sentence to thirteen years’ imprisonment. 31.  On 11 June 1998 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (Барање за вонредно преиспитување на правосилна одлука) with the Supreme Court (Врховен суд). 32.  On 2 July 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law on the grounds that the investigating judge had acted within his competence when he decided to interrogate the witnesses in the United States and that the applicant and his lawyers had been given an opportunity to attend the hearing. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that it would have been impossible to have the witnesses heard at the public hearing, as they were serving a prison sentence abroad. Consequently, in accordance with the rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure there were sufficient reasons to justify the statements being read out at the public hearing. 33.  On 6 September 1999 the applicant’s son declared before a notary that his father had had nothing to do with drug trafficking. Another person also declared before a public notary that the applicant had been engaged in trade with spare parts for motor vehicles.
On 5 October 1999 the applicant applied to the Skopje Municipal Court to have his case reopened on the basis of those declarations. His application was dismissed on 27 October 1999. On 27 December 1999 that decision was upheld by the Skopje Court of Appeal.


5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Velenje. 6.  On 21 January 1997 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a lignite mine. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT. 7.  On 24 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,215,600 tolars (approximately 5,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 3 February 1999 and 23 April 2002 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 11 February and 12 November 1998 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the five hearings held between 11 December 1998 and 24 September 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert who was ultimately replaced by another medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 20 November 2002. 8.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and further requested that the first-instance court corrects its judgment for typos and miscalculations. ZT cross-appealed.
On 27 November 2002 the first-instance court corrected the judgment. The decision was served on the applicant on 29 November 2002.
On 7 April 2004 the Celje Higher Court allowed both appeals in part, decreased the damages awarded and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination of the decision on costs and expenses.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 4 May 2004
ZT requested that the court corrected the judgment for miscalculations.
On 13 May 2004 the court corrected the judgment.
On 4 June 2004 this decision was served on the applicant. 9.  On 8 October 2004 the first-instance court delivered a new decision on costs and expenses. 10.  On 19 October 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
On 9 November 2005 the court allowed the appeal and increased the amount awarded for costs and expenses. The decision was served on the applicant on 21 November 2005.


5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Košice. 6.  On 22 May 1997 an individual, A., disappeared. He was the head of a municipal office and an entrepreneur. It has been submitted by the applicant, and not disputed by the Government, that he was the principal owner of an important industrial enterprise, B., which was going through the process of denationalisation and was at the relevant time still partly co‑owned by the State in the person of the National Property Fund, a public institution responsible for the administration and denationalisation of State‑owned property in Slovakia. 7.  An official search for A. ensued. It was directed by C. At that time he was the head of the criminal investigation department of a regional police headquarters of the region concerned. According to the Government, whose submission has not been disputed by the applicant, C. left the police for the private sector in 1999. 8.  Nevertheless, the search efforts were unsuccessful and, at an unspecified time, A. was pronounced legally dead. 9.  In 2000 a criminal investigation of the disappearance of A. was opened by the Serious Offences Investigation Department in another regional town. The investigation was however stayed in 2005, as no evidence had been established allowing charges to be brought against any specific individual. 10.  The circumstances of the disappearance of A., the search for him and his presumed whereabouts were the subject of an article published on 31 May 2000 in a weekly magazine with nationwide coverage.
After the publication of the article written by the applicant, which is at the heart of the present case, and which is mentioned in detail below, these matters were again written on in another article published at an unspecified time in another weekly magazine with nationwide coverage.
Without including a reference to it, the latter article contained some parts of the applicant’s article. 11.  In May 2001 the applicant, who is an editor, obtained information from C. concerning the disappearance of A. 12.  On 29 May 2001 C. signed a written declaration before a notary public confirming, in the following terms, that he had previously provided the applicant with such information for the purpose of having it published:
“I have heard a recording of an intercepted telephone conversation which took place on the evening when the head of the municipal office in ... [A.] disappeared. At that time I was the head of the criminal investigation department of the regional police headquarters in ...and I personally took part in the search for the missing [A.].
The recording contained the voice of [D.], who was calling from [a restaurant] to a hotel ... and announced that [A.] was already on the way. We have not been able to establish who took the call, because the recording, like other evidence, has been removed from the file.
At the very beginning of the investigation we were visited by ... who was at that time deputy director of the Slovak Intelligence Service, and who declared that [A.] was dead and that the investigation was over.” 13.  At that time the applicant worked for a daily newspaper named Národná obroda, which was published by a limited liability company, E.
The daily had nationwide coverage, and in the course of the ensuing proceedings was accepted by the courts as being opinion-forming (mienkotvorný). 14.  On 16 June 2003 an article written by the applicant was published in Národná obroda under the title:
‘An industrialist [A.] of [a town] has disappeared and never been found’ 15.  The article drew a parallel between the case of A. and that of another entrepreneur who had disappeared earlier that month. According to the article, that entrepreneur and A. were both associated with one of the major political parties, and their disappearances resembled one another. The individuals referred to in the article included D. and were identified by their full names. 16.  In so far as relevant, the article contained the following passages:
“The last people who saw [A.] had had a meeting with him in [a restaurant] concerning a capital entry into [B.]. [A.] controlled [B.] ...The dinner was attended by [two businessmen on behalf of another company], and a local representative of their interests, [D.] ...
‘My husband went to that meeting with concerns’: declared [A.’s] widow. ‘The meeting was originally intended to take place over lunch, but it was suddenly rescheduled for the evening. He had no intention of letting any outsider into the company. My husband left all the documents concerning [the company] with his secretary, who was to pass them on to me if something happened to him.’” 17.  The passage that would later become crucial (see paragraph 29 below) read as follows:
“The editorial office of [Národná obroda] moreover has in its possession a written statement by one of the police officers who took part in the search for [A.]. ‘I have heard a recording of an intercepted telephone conversation from that evening. [D.] called from [a restaurant] to a hotel ... and announced that [A.] was already on the way. We have not however been able to establish who took the message, and the recording, like other evidence, was later removed from the file.’, submits the former police officer who took part in the search for [A.].
[D.] dropped [A.] off in his car in front of [a factory] and [A.] has not been seen since. The tape with the recording probably no longer exists.
‘The next day the then director of counter-espionage at [the Slovak Intelligence Service] ..., seized the recording. He said that [A.] was dead and that the investigation was over.’, alleges the police officer.” 18. D. is a practising lawyer and an entrepreneur involved in national and international trade. On 18 June 2003 he addressed complaints about the article of 16 June 2003 to the chief editor of Národná obroda and to its publisher, E., seeking publication of a correction and an apology, as well as the payment of an equivalent of approximately 120,000 euros (EUR) in damages. He received no reply. 19.  On 4 August 2003 D. lodged a libel action against E. with the Poprad District Court (Okresný súd). He relied on Articles 11 et seq. of the Civil Code (Law no. 40/1964 Coll., as amended) and Article 8 of the Convention, asserted protection of his personal integrity, and claimed damages in the amount mentioned above. 20.  The action was later amended so as eventually to advance the line of argument that the article contained untrue, incomplete and misleading statements, in particular as regards (i) the alleged representation by D. of the interests of another entity; (ii) the implied suggestion that A. had been dragged to the meeting against his will by D.; (iii) the allegation that D. had made a telephone call giving information about A.’s movements; (iv) the business background of the meeting; and (v) the general tenor of the article, which implied that D. might have had something to do with A.’s disappearance. 21.  On 27 July 2004 the District Court admitted the applicant to the proceedings as the second defendant of the action, following an application by D. to that effect at a hearing held the previous day. 22.  Further hearings were held on 18 February and 8 April 2005 and 19 April, 30 May, and 15 December 2006.
At these hearings, the parties, their representatives and a number of witnesses were heard, including C., who acknowledged knowing and having spoken to the applicant before the publication of the article and having provided him with information concerning the investigation of the disappearance of A. However, C. could not recall the information he had provided to the applicant in any detail. 23.  The examination of further witness evidence was principally aimed at assessing the repercussions of the article on D.’s reputation and business, the circumstances of the fateful meeting, and its corporate and transactional background. 24.  The District Court also obtained information from the police concerning the status of the criminal investigation of A.’s disappearance and the existence of any elements in the investigation case file originating from the alleged interception of calls. According to the police report, no such elements were or had been present in the investigation file. However, the investigation had only been opened in 2000 (see paragraph 9 above), and prior to its commencement there had been no criminal investigation stricto sensu, but only an official search for A. (see paragraph 7 above). 25.  Following the last-mentioned hearing, on 15 December 2006 the District Court allowed the action in so far as D. was claiming the equivalent of approximately EUR 28,500 in damages and a further EUR 14,650 in costs and expenses, payable by E. and the applicant jointly and severally. The remainder of the claim was dismissed. 26.  The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the article concerned matters of what was known as large-scale privatisation, that is to say the process of transferring State ownership of industrial enterprises into private hands. This process was undoubtedly of public interest, and the media had the duty to report on matters concerning it. Furthermore, the article only went as far as indicating that the editorial office of Národná obroda had had in its possession a written statement by C., which was true. By no means had the article suggested that the contents of this statement were endorsed by E. or the applicant, and neither were they presented as a matter of fact. 27.  The appeal was subject to a court fee amounting to the equivalent of some EUR 1,950, the applicant’s request for an exemption from which was dismissed. 28.  On 20 February 2008 the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) determined the appeals by quashing the contested judgment and discontinuing the proceedings in so far as they concerned E., because in the course of the proceedings E. had been dissolved and struck out of the Companies’ Register without a legal successor.
At the same time, the Regional Court reduced the amount of damages payable by the applicant to the equivalent of some EUR 3,000, along with costs amounting to the equivalent of some EUR 10,150. 29.  The reasoning of the District Court, as complemented by that of the Regional Court, may be summarised as follows:
There had been an interference with D.’s personal integrity, stemming in particular from the suggestion that he had made a telephone call concerning A.’s movements. The claimant’s complaint about the other factual allegations in the article, such as that he had been representing someone else’s interests and had dragged A. along to the meeting, was ill-founded.
As regards the crucial allegation concerning the alleged phone call, the courts noted that this was based on the information provided to the applicant by C., which however had been unofficial and unconfirmed. In that respect, with reference to the position taken by the police, the courts concluded that the truthfulness of this allegation had not been established.
It was the role of the media to provide objective and balanced news, and the applicant’s defence, which relied on the fact that he had obtained the impugned information from C. and the statement that he had no duty to verify it, could not be accepted.
In that respect, as a matter of principle, the author and the publisher of an article were responsible for providing truthful content for their published information. This responsibility was to be construed as an objective one, and it was not discharged by quoting the information and referring to its source. Moreover, issues such as intent and negligence were irrelevant.
The applicant, who had not ascertained the truthfulness or otherwise of the contested information, was liable for its being untrue, and the fact that he had quoted it and referred to its source was of no consequence.
The unlawful interference with his personal integrity had caused considerable damage to D.’s good name and reputation. But the fact that the applicant had cited his source and that, despite the article, D. continued with a private and social life as well as his successful career, militated in favour of reducing the amount of damages as determined by the Court of Appeal. 30.  The matter became resolved by force of a final and binding judgment on 14 April 2008. 31.  On 18 June 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended), alleging a violation of his rights under Article 10 of the Convention.
The applicant argued that the information in the article concerning the alleged call by D. was a statement of fact, made in quotation marks and with a general reference to its source. It was, as such, truthful, because the editorial office of Národná obroda did in fact have at its disposal the information quoted. Moreover, in view of the official function of C., the applicant should not have had any legitimate doubt that that information was true. 32.  On 3 June 2008 the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) declared the complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. It held that a general court could not bear “secondary liability” for a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms of a substantive nature unless there had been a violation of procedural rules. As no violation of any procedural rule had been alleged, there could not have been a violation of the cited substantive provision either.
The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 15 August 2008.


5. Mr Leonid Ivanovych Andrusenko was born in 1953 and currently resides in the village of Konstiantynivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine. Mr Valeriy Volodymyrovych Bondarenko was born in 1956 and currently resides in the town of Krasnogorivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine. Mr Ivan Petrovych Mysnianko was born in 1961 and currently resides in the town of Vugledar, Donetsk region, Ukraine. Mr Oleksandr Mykolayovych Goryachykh was born in 1958 and currently resides in the town of Vugledar, Donetsk region, Ukraine. Mr Volodymyr Grygorovych Leontyev was born in 1940 and currently resides in the town of Vugledar, Donetsk region, Ukraine. Mr Ivan Yegorovich Migunov was born in 1956 and currently resides in the town of Vugledar, Donetsk region, Ukraine. 6.  In 1997 Mr Andrusenko was dismissed from the “Pivdennodonbasska” State-owned mine No.3 (the “PDM No.3”). In February 1998 he instituted proceedings in the Vugledar Town Court claiming to reinstate him in his position. On 10 September 1998 the court rejected his claims. On 19 October 1998 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 28 December 1998 the Vugledar Town Court reinstated Mr Andrusenko in his position and ordered the PDM No.3 to pay him compensation in salary arrears. On 22 February 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The case was remitted to Petrovsky District Court of Donetsk for examination on the merits, on the basis of Mr Andrusenko’s request to change the jurisdiction. On 12 July 2000 the Petrovsky District Court found in part for Mr Andrusenko. On 28 September 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. Mr Andrusenko lodged a petition with the Donetsk Regional Court seeking consideration of the merits of his claims, without remitting the case for fresh consideration. On 5 December 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court found in part for Mr Andrusenko and awarded him UAH 17,699.68[1] against the PDM No.3 in salary arrears and other payments. On 28 February 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this judgment. By a letter of 15 December 2004 Mr Andrusenko informed the Court that the judgment in his favour was enforced in June 2004. 7.  On 13 November 2001 the Maryinsky District Court ordered the PDN No.3 to provide Mr Andrusenko with 24 tonnes of coal. It also ordered the PDN No.3 to pay Mr Andrusenko UAH 607.72[2] in compensation. By a letter of 15 December 2004 Mr Andrusenko informed the Court that the pecuniary part of the judgment was enforced by January 2003. However, 24 tonnes of coal awarded in the judgment of 13 November 2001 have been never provided to him. 8.  On 18 January 2002 the Maryinsky District Court ordered the PDN No.3 to pay Mr Andrusenko UAH 244.39[3] in compensation for salary arrears and moral damage. By another judgment delivered on the same date Mr Andrusenko also received UAH 56[4] in salary arrears. By a letter of 15 December 2004 Mr Andrusenko informed the Court that the judgments were enforced by January 2003. 9.  On 29 October 1999 and 15 November 2000 the Maryinsky District Court of the Donetsk Region awarded Mr Bondarenko UAH 8,542.85[5] and UAH 3,785.74[6], respectively, against his employer, the State-owned Krasnogorivsky Vognetryvnyj Zavod factory (the “KVZ”), in salary arrears. On 8 June 2000 the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region initiated a reorganisation procedure (процедура санації) for the KVZ factory and the enforcement of the judgments was suspended. On 29 May 2003 Mr Bondarenko withdrew the writs of enforcement and the enforcement proceedings were closed. The judgments in his favour remain unenforced. 10.  On 17 and 22 December 1998, and on 10 April 2001 the Vugledar Town Court awarded Mr Musnianko UAH 27,457[7], UAH 1,605[8] and UAH 20,974.69[9], respectively, against his employer, PDM No.3, in compensation for a work-related illness and in salary arrears. By a letter of 20 December 2004 Mr Musnianko informed the Court that the judgments in his favour were enforced by instalments, the final amounts being paid in August and December 2002, and in May 2004, respectively. 11.  On 29 September 2000 the Vugledar Town Court awarded Mr Goryachykh a lump sum of UAH 29,352.24[10] and monthly payments of UAH 420.94[11] until 13 September 2001 against his former employer, the PDM No.3, in compensation for an industrial injury. By a letter of 20 December 2004 Mr Goryachykh informed the Court that the judgment in his favour was enforced in May 2004. 12.  On 2 November 1998 the Vugledar Town Court awarded Mr Leontyev UAH 38,620.60[12] against his former employer, the “Pivdennodonbasska” State-owned mine No.1 (“PDM No.1”), in compensation for an industrial injury. On 25 January 1999 the Vugledar Town Court awarded Mr Leontyev UAH 2,140[13] against the PDM No.1 in compensation for moral damage. On 30 August 1999 the Vugledar Town Court awarded him UAH 6,864.20[14] in compensation for an industrial injury. It also awarded Mr Leontyev UAH 1,575[15] as a single-payment retirement benefit. By a letter of 20 December 2004 Mr Leontyev informed the Court that the judgments in his favour were enforced by April-June 2001 and by January 2003, respectively. 13.  On 3 December 1998 the Vugledar Town Court awarded Mr Migunov UAH 33,625.42[16] against the PDM No.1 in compensation for an industrial injury. On 5 December 2000 the Vugledar Town Court awarded him UAH 2,269.80[17] against the PDM No.1 in additional compensation for the delay in payment. On 15 November 2002 the Vugledar Town Court awarded Mr Migunov UAH 25,706.26[18] against the PDM No.1 in compensation for the delayed payment of salary. By a letter of 25 December 2004 Mr Migunov informed the Court that the judgments in his favour were enforced by February - May 2004.


4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest. 5.  On 21 May 1999, he signed a contract for services with the National Association of Securities Dealers, a private enterprise (“the Association”). 6.  On 18 July 2000 he notified the Association of his intention to terminate the contract from 5 August 2000, invoking the Association's non‑compliance with its contractual obligations. 7.  On 13 November 2000, the applicant lodged with the Bucharest County Court an action against the Association seeking compensation for pecuniary damage caused by the latter's failure to fulfil its contractual obligations. 8.  Before the County Court, the Association asked to have the contract declared null and void on the ground that the procedure for the validation of the contract had not been carried out in conformity with its own statutes, this having as result the fact that the contract was not legally binding on it. The applicant contested this argument. 9.  In a judgment of 7 June 2001, the County Court found the contract to be valid and, based on an expert opinion, awarded the applicant 129,648 US dollars (USD) in compensation, USD 8,330 by way of penalties and 96,413,000 Romanian lei (ROL) for court fees.
According to the applicable law, this judgment was enforceable. 10.  In a final decision of 5 November 2001, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the Association and confirmed the judgment. 11.  On 22 January 2002, the applicant, who had instituted proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of 7 June 2001, received ROL 440,000,000 from the Association.
This sum is still in the applicant's possession although proceedings for its recovery have been started by the Association in 2005 and are still pending with the domestic courts. 12.  On 5 December 2001, the Procurator‑General, at the Association's request, lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Justice to have both the judgment of 7 June 2001 and the final decision of 5 November 2001 quashed (“recurs în anulare”) on the ground that the two courts which decided on the case had committed a serious breach of the law when examining the legality of the parties' contract. 13.  On 18 April 2002, the Supreme Court postponed the pronouncement of the final decision until 29 May 2002.
The decision was eventually adopted on 5 June 2002. The Supreme Court allowed the application, quashed the final decision of 5 November 2001 and sent the case back to the Bucharest Court of Appeal for a fresh examination on the merits, on the ground that the two courts had not examined whether the contract was valid and binding on both parties and whether the applicant's initial action could still be allowed in the light of the termination of the contract by the applicant on 5 August 2000. 14.  In an interlocutory judgment of 13 November 2002, the Court of Appeal asked the applicant to supplement the court fees by ROL 18,231,600 which he did on 10 December 2002. 15.  In a final decision of 12 March 2003, the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the Association's appeal, quashed the judgment of 7 June 2001 and dismissed the applicant's action on the ground that while the contract was valid, the conditions for engaging the Association's responsibility for paying damages were not met. It also ordered the applicant to pay the Association ROL 32,109,680 in court fees.


4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in İzmir. 5.  On 8 July 1999 the İzmir Public Prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant, charging him with a violation of the Associations Law. 6.  On 19 November 2003 the İzmir Criminal Court sentenced him to a fine. 7.  On 9 March 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 19 November 2003. 8.  On 28 November 2006 the İzmir Criminal Court decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant, holding that the prosecution was time-barred.


5. The applicants were born in 1965 and 1979 in Sri Lanka. Currently they live at the Jelling Asylum Centre. They are of Tamil ethnicity. 6.  On 14 September 2005, with valid passports and three month visas, the applicant spouses entered Denmark, where the applicant husband, TN's sister and brother lived permanently. His three other siblings lived elsewhere in Europe. 7.  On 13 December 2005 the applicants requested asylum. 8.  On 19 December 2005 they explained that they had never been arrested, politically active or involved in any conflict with the authorities. The applicants were married on 2 December 2004 and lived in Batticaloa on the east coast of Sri Lanka, where the applicant husband ran a fishing business and an electrical company, and had a good income. They lost their fishing boat and their house in the tsunami on 26 December 2004. Thereafter they lived with the applicant wife's parents. The applicants did not sympathise with the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) but the latter had sometimes forced the applicants to support them financially. After the applicants had left Sri Lanka, their motorbike had been confiscated by the Karuna group, which had stated that “they were waiting for the applicants”. The Karuna group, later known as the Tamil People's Liberation Tigers, (TMVP), was led by Karuna, a previous commander in the LTTE. Initially it was a paramilitary group that helped the Government fight the LTTE and later, in 2007, it became a registered political party. 9.  On 22 December 2005 the applicant husband added that on 3 April 2005 he had been confronted by four unknown men, three of whom belonged to the Karuna group, who wanted information about his cousin, who was a member of the LTTE. Later in May 2005 two persons had tried to stop him on his motorcycle. On another day in May, he had been stopped on the street by two of the previously mentioned four persons, who again requested information about the cousin. This was the reason why the applicants had decided to go to Denmark. 10.  On 16 January 2006 the applicant husband added that his home was searched on average once a month in a general way, whereby the whole village was surrounded and the whole population was gathered by the military who wanted to find out whether there were any LTTE members in the village. Every now and then he was taken away by the military. In 1988 he had been detained by the Indian Army for one night and his feet and hands had been tied. He was released after his eldest brother paid bail for him. In 1998 he was detained by the Sri Lankan Army for two nights, suspected of being a member of the LTTE. They hit his jaw, leaving a scar. Following mediation by members of Parliament, he was released together with nine other detainees. The applicant was not detained or ill‑treated by the authorities up to his departure in 2005. In September 2005 two persons had tried to stop him and his wife on their motorbike in a forest area in order to kill them, but they had managed to escape. 11.  By decision of 19 April 2006 the Aliens Authorities (Udlændingestyrelsen, now Udlændingeservice) refused to grant the applicants asylum. 12.  On appeal, during a hearing before the Refugee Board (Flygtningenævnet) on 14 August 2006 the applicant husband stated that he had been approached by the LTTE and asked to pay them money for the first time around 1996. All fishermen were to pay money to the LTTE. The latter would come to his home at one to three month intervals. After he lost his fishing boat in 2004 they stopped asking him for money. On 3 April 2005 he had been confronted by three men from the Karuna group and a Singhalese who beat him and forced him to admit that he had paid money to the LTTE. They also asked about the whereabouts of his cousin, who was a member of the LTTE at the relevant time. The last time he had seen his cousin was at his aunt's home in 2001, but only briefly, and they did not really talk to each other. The applicant did not like the cousin due to his connection with the LTTE. The applicant did not know where the cousin lived at the relevant time and the four men let him go. Later, in May 2005, two persons from the Karuna group, one of whom had taken part in the incident on 3 April 2005, stopped him and asked about his cousin's whereabouts and then let him go. In September 2005, two days prior to his departure, two unknown men had tried to stop him and his wife on their motorcycle, but they had managed to escape. 13.  By decision of 14 August 2006 the Refugee Board confirmed the Aliens Authorities' decision of 19 April 2006 that the applicants failed to fulfil the criteria under section 7 of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven). It noted that the applicants' asylum motive was based mainly on fear of the Karuna group, which demanded the male applicant's cooperation to obtain information about his cousin. It did not rule out that it was possible, as stated by the applicants, that the Sri Lankan authorities cooperated with the Karuna group but it found that approaches from people related to the Karuna group in Batticaloa had to be considered geographically restricted and emphasized that in the present case the male applicant had a low profile and had been able to depart legally from Colombo in September 2005. 14.  An anonymised summary of the applicants' case, together with thirty other cases involving Sri Lankan nationals, was published on the Refugee Appeal Board's Website. 15.  By letter of 20 September 2006 the applicants' representative requested a re-opening of the case. 16.  On 30 October 2006, in the light of a recommendation of 27 October 2006 from the UNHCR to the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs about the situation in Sri Lanka, the Refugee Appeals Board decided to suspend all cases concerning ethnic Tamils from Sri Lanka. 17.  On 14 March 2007, and anew on 14 August 2007, finding that no essential new information or aspects had been submitted, the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the applicant's case. 18.  On 27 August 2007, the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs refused the applicants' application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. 19.  On 26 September 2007 the Refugee Appeals Board received a letter by a named person, who stated that the applicant husband was suspected by the security forces and the Karuna group of having cooperated with the LTTE. The Refugee Appeals Board understood the letter as a request for a reopening of the case. The applicant husband submitted a letter of 10 October 2007 repeating his previous statements, and adding that he had been forced to try to find the cousin who was a member of the LTTE. 20.  On 29 October 2007, the Refugee Appeals Board refused once more to reopen the applicants' case. 21.  On 31 October 2007 the UNHCR requested the Refugee Appeals Board to stay forced returns of ethnic Tamils from Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka with reference to a letter dated 23 October 2007 from the European Court of Human Rights to the British Government. On the same day the Refugee Appeals Board extended the time-limit for the applicants' departure. 22.  On 6 November 2007 the Refugee Appeals Board replied to the UNHCR's request in general terms, refusing to introduce a general stay of forced returns of ethnic Tamils from Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka with reference to the general situation for this group. 23.  On 2 July 2008 the latter decided to resume the forced deportation of the applicants. 24.   The UNHCR repeated its request on 16 July 2008, to which the Refugee Appeals Board replied on 4 August 2008, again refusing to extend the applicants' departure date. 25.  In the meantime, two daughters were born to the applicants on 28 September 2006 and 9 March 2008.
Subsequent events before the Court and domestic proceedings 26.  On Friday 1 August 2008 the Danish Refugee Council (Dansk Flygtningehjælp), an NGO, requested that the Refugee Appeals Board reopen the case. It stated, inter alia, that the applicants had provided new information in the case at an interview held with the said NGO. The applicants had stated that, several times since their departure, persons from the Karuna group and Sri Lankan soldiers had contacted the applicant wife's parents, questioned them about the applicants and had their home searched. The parents had therefore gone into hiding. Due to recent developments the Karuna group had been able to operate in the Batticaloa area. The applicant husband had been imprisoned in 1988/1989 and again in 1998 on suspicion of affiliation with the LTTE. Both times he was subjected to ill-treatment, leaving scars on his body and face. Moreover, and differently from claims in previous statements, the applicant had carried out jobs for the LTTE, such as purchasing batteries, petrol, food and other goods in the Government controlled areas and bringing the products to the LTTE. In fact in 1998, the applicant husband had been released from prison at the request of the LTTE so that he could continue to work for them. He had avoided mentioning his work for the LTTE for fear of being expelled from Denmark. 27.  On the same day, on the applicants' behalf, the Danish Refugee Council submitted a letter to the Court of Human Rights requesting that it stay the applicants' deportation. 28.  On 4 August 2008, the Court of Human Rights decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Government that it was in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant should not be expelled to Sri Lanka pending the Court's decision. 29.  Consequently, on 7 August 2008 the Refugee Appeals Board extended the time-limit for the applicants' departure until further notice. 30.  On 17 December 2008 the Refugee Appeals Board again refused to reopen the applicants' asylum case finding that no essential new information or aspects had been submitted. As regard the new and extended information, for example about having scars on his body as opposed to his previous explanation about having “only” a scar on his jaw as a result of his detention in 1998, and about his alleged work for the LTTE, the Refugee Appeals Board noted that in view of the numerous times he had been requested to provide all relevant information, and the fact that he had on his own initiative requested a reopening of the case several times with reference to new information, he had not provided a reasonable explanation as to why he had not furnished this information before. The Refugee Appeals Board therefore rejected the new information as fabricated for the occasion. 31.  On 16 December 2009, on the basis of the most recent background information concerning Sri Lanka including, inter alia, a Memorandum of 26 October 2009 prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Refugee Appeals Board decided to review the suspended cases, including the applicant's case. 32.  On 16 March 2010 the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the applicants' case as it found that the most recent general background information would not lead to a revised assessment of the case. More specifically in its letter to the applicant's representative it stated as follows:
“... The Refugee Appeals Board still finds that, if returned to Sri Lanka, your clients will not risk persecution or outrages as covered by section 7 of the Aliens Act by the Sri Lankan authorities, including in connection with arrival at Colombo Airport. In this connection, the Refugee Appeals Board emphasises that your male client stated during the asylum proceedings that he has not been politically active or otherwise been involved in conflicts with the Sri Lankan authorities or the LTTE. The Board thus emphasises that your male client appears not to stand out in any way at all as he has exclusively been the subject of money demands from the LTTE like other fishermen in Batticaloa. In that connection, the Board refers to the fact that your clients left Sri Lanka lawfully using their own Sri Lankan national passports. The Refugee Appeals Board also refers to the fact that it appears from the background material available to the Board that, in general, individuals who have previously supported the LTTE on a lower level are not of interest to the authorities. Thus, generally, only high-profile members of the LTTE who are still active and wanted, or individuals wanted for serious criminal offences are of interest to the authorities, see United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note, Sri Lanka, August 2009, and Home Office, Report of Information Gathering Visit to Colombo, Sri Lanka 23‑ 29 August 2009. Also against that background, the Refugee Appeals Board finds that your clients will not be at a real risk of persecution or outrages as covered by section 7 of the Aliens Act on the part of the Karuna Group or the TMVP, which are in the factual control of Batticaloa according to United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note, Sri Lanka, August 2009. In that connection, the Refugee Appeals Board observes that your clients' incidents with the group took place in 2005. Likewise, on the background of the above, the Refugee Appeals Board finds that the fact that your male client's cousin has been a member of the LTTE for fifteen years cannot warrant a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act according to the background material now available. It should be noted that your male client stated at the Board hearing on 14 August 2006 about his cousin, V, that he last saw V in 2001 at his mother's sister's house and did not otherwise have any contact with him. The fact that as ethnic Tamils from eastern Sri Lanka your clients may risk being questioned and investigated by the authorities upon entry into the country does not lead to a revised assessment of the case under asylum law. In this assessment, consideration has been given to the background information available to the Board, from which it appears that the individuals at particular risk of being detained and investigated upon entry in Colombo are young Tamils, men in particular, from northern and eastern Sri Lanka: those without ID; those not resident or employed in Colombo; and those recently returned from the West, see United Kingdom: Home Office, Report of Information Gathering Visit to Colombo, Sri Lanka 23 - 29 August 2009. In that connection, the Board refers to the fact that your clients appear not to stand out at all. Against that background, the Refugee Appeals Board finds that it has not been rendered probable that the Sri Lankan authorities would take a special interest in your clients upon return. This also applies regardless of the fact that your male client may have scars on his face or on his body. In that respect, please see the Danish Government's further observations of 20 May 2009 to your pleading of 6 April 2009 in the complaint T.N. and S.N. v. Denmark before the European Court of Human Rights. As in its decision of 14 August 2006, the Refugee Appeals Board still finds that the general situation for ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka is not of such nature that it in itself warrants a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act. The Board observes in that connection that it is a condition for a residence permit under section 7 that, upon a specific and individual assessment, the alien is deemed at risk of persecution or outrages. The authority of the Refugee Appeals Board is restricted to determining asylum-relevant issues, and it is thus outside the Board's authority to determine whether an alien who does not meet the conditions of Article 7 of the Aliens Act may be issued with a residence permit for other reasons of a more humanitarian nature. Against that background and in accordance with its decision of 14 August 2006, the Board still finds that it has not been rendered probable that, in case of return to Sri Lanka, your clients would be at a concrete and individual risk of persecution as covered by section 7(1) of the Aliens Act, or that your clients would be at a real risk of outrages as covered by section 7(2) of the Aliens Act. It should be noted that your clients' time-limit for departure is still suspended until further notice on the basis of the request of 4 August 2008 from the European Court of Human Rights. If your clients' basis of lawful residence in Denmark lapses, your clients must leave Denmark immediately, see section 33 of the Aliens Act. As appears from the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 14 August 2006, your clients may be forcibly returned to Sri Lanka if they do not leave voluntarily, see section 32a, cf. section 31, of the Aliens Act. The decision also comprises your clients' two children.”


4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Karlovac. 5.  The applicant and her husband were holders of a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Karlovac. In 1991 a bomb was thrown into the flat and the family moved out of the flat for security reasons. By a decision of the Karlovac Housing Committee of 29 November 1991 they were given another flat in Karlovac for temporary occupation. The applicant’s husband moved out of the flat in 1992 and they subsequently divorced. The applicant and two children born of the marriage continued to occupy the flat. The above-said decision was annulled by the same Commission on 11 November 2000. 6.  In 2000 the Karlovac Municipality, as the owner of the flat, brought a civil action in the Karlovac Municipal Court against the applicant, seeking her eviction. The claim was granted on 1 February 2008 on the ground that the flat at issue had been given for temporary occupation to the applicant’s husband who had left the flat and that that decision had been annulled in 2000 and that therefore she no longer had a legal basis for occupying the flat. 7.  This judgment was upheld by the Karlovac County Court on 19 August 2009. 8.  In her subsequent constitutional complaint the applicant argued that she had been a holder of a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Karlovac, owned by the Karlovac Municipality and had to leave that flat owing to the circumstances not attributable to her. She had moved into the other flat, on the basis of a decision issued by the Karlovac Housing Committee. That other flat was also owned by the Karlovac Municipality and it had been agreed between the owner and the applicant that she would be granted a specially protected tenancy on that other flat. She also argued that the case concerned an existential issue for her; that she had been living in the flat for more than twenty years; that she had addressed the Karlovac Municipality on numerous occasions and had been told “not to worry and that everything would be alright”; that she had fulfilled her obligations as a tenant. The complaint was dismissed on 29 March 2012.


5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Legnica, Poland. 6.  On 29 November 1999 the applicant lodged a claim for rectification of an entry in a local land register with the Legnica Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). She sought to be considered as the sole owner of the real estate that she had inherited from her late father and which had been erroneously recorded as the joint property of the applicant and her husband. On an unknown date she made an application for an exemption from court fees required from her to take the proceedings (PLN 7,500). On 15 December 1999 the Regional Court dismissed her application. 7.  The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision. 8.  On 30 December 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed her appeal. As she had failed to pay the court fees her claim was returned to her on an unknown later date. 9.  The applicant subsequently lodged a second claim for rectification of the entry in the local land register. On 10 February 2000 the Legnica Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay, within seven days, a court fee of PLN 9,750. 10.  On 15 February 2000 the applicant made an application to be exempted from court fees. The applicant maintained that she received a monthly disability pension of PLN 1,075. In addition, she had some extra income as she was a self‑employed lawyer. However, she had a loan to pay off and a household to support since she was divorced. She further claimed that her income only allowed her to support herself and her daughter and that she had not been able to put money aside for court fees. 11.  On 13 March 2000 the Legnica Regional Court dismissed her application. The court held that the applicant's financial situation was sound since she received a monthly disability pension of PLN 1,075. In addition, the income from her law firm in November amounted to PLN 19,563. The court further held that the applicant could not be considered indigent since she was a practising lawyer. Lastly, the applicant should have set aside money for the litigation. 12.  On 24 March 2000 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against this decision. The applicant submitted that the PLN 19,563 mentioned in her tax return constituted her gross income for the period of eleven months. She further claimed that having to pay the full amount of court fees would entail a substantial reduction in her standard of living. Lastly, she argued that Article 113 of the Civil Procedure Code provided a possibility for an exemption from court fees for a person who could demonstrate that payment of such fees would entail a substantial reduction in his or her standard of living. This exemption was not only applicable to the less well-off. 13.  On 26 May 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court held that while the applicant's gross income from her law firm in November amounted to PLN 19,563 her net income in that month had been PLN 2,664. Considering the fact that she also received a monthly disability pension, she could have put aside money for the payment of court fees. 14.  On 26 May 2000 the court ordered the applicant to pay court fees of PLN 9,750, failing which her claim would be rejected. The applicant again asked to be exempted from court fees, repeating her earlier arguments. 15.  On 31 August 2000 the Legnica Regional Court dismissed her application. The court held that the applicant received a monthly disability pension of PLN 1,320 and also at least PLN 1,000 net income from her law firm. Further, in view of the applicant's profession she could not be considered indigent. In addition, the applicant should have set aside the money for the litigation. Lastly, the court stressed that:
“[the amount of] lawyers' incomes are widely known”.
The applicant appealed against this decision. 16.  On 19 December 2000 the Legnica Regional Court returned the statement of claim to the applicant as she had failed to pay the required court fees. According to the applicant, the decision was served on her on 22 December 2000. 17.  On 21 April 2004 the applicant for the third time lodged a statement of claim with the Legnica Regional Court for the rectification of the entry in the local land register. On 12 May 2004 the court ordered her to pay PLN 5,490 [approx. EUR 1,370] in court fees failing which her statement of claim would be returned to her. The applicant did not ask to be exempted from the fees. On 21 May 2004 she paid the fees. 18.  On 24 September 2004 the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim. On 28 October 2004 the applicant appealed. On an unspecified date the court ordered her to pay PLN 5,490 in court fees on pain of her appeal being rejected. The applicant again failed to ask for an exemption from the court fee. On 16 November 2004 the applicant paid the requested fee. On 12 January 2005 the Legnica Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim. The judgment is final.


4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow. 5.  On 22 November 1994 the applicant and her husband bought a flat. In addition, they agreed to lend a certain sum to the seller.  After the applicant had paid for the flat, the seller refused to transfer the title and move out. The applicant and her husband sued her for eviction. The seller counterclaimed and requested a court to annul the contract and to order restitutio in integrum. 6.  On 4 June 1997 the Moscow City Court, in the final instance, found for the seller. 7.  In June 1999 the applicant sued the seller for return of the purchase price, repayment of the loan and interest on the amounts outstanding. 8.  On 5 March 2001 the Timiryazevskiy District Court partly accepted the action. 9.  The applicant's representative, Mr Martyanov, appealed to the Moscow City Court. He complained that the judgment was unfair and that the District Court had not given the applicant's arguments due consideration. 10.  The Moscow City Court listed an appeal hearing for 2 August 2001 and sent summonses to the applicant and her representative by post. The representative received the summons on 23 July 2001. The summons was not delivered to the applicant. 11.  The appeal hearing of 2 August 2001 was adjourned until 20 August 2001 because the parties defaulted. According to the Government, summonses for the hearing listed for 20 August 2001 were mailed to the parties on 13 August 2001. According to the postmark on the envelope, the summons were dispatched on 17 August 2001 and received at the applicant's local post office on 11 September 2001. 12.  On 20 August 2001 the Moscow City Court adjourned the hearing until 4 September 2001 because the parties did not attend. According to the Government, the Moscow City Court sent summonses to the parties by post on 21 August 2001. 13.  On 4 September 2001 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal and rejected it. Neither party was present. 14.  On 4 October 2001 the applicant received a summons for the hearing that had taken place on 4 September 2001. According to the postmark on the envelope, the summons was dispatched on 24 August 2001 and received at the applicant's local post office on 4 October 2001. 15.  It appears that the judgment of 5 March 2001, as upheld on appeal on 4 September 2001, has remained unenforced because the seller left Moscow and her current place of residence is unknown.


4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır. 5.  On 22 September 1996 the applicant, who was sixteen years old at the time, was taken into custody by policemen from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). In her police statements dated 6 and 8 October 1996 respectively, the applicant accepted the charges against her. During her interrogations, the applicant did not have the assistance of a lawyer. 6.  On 22 October 1996 the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and subsequently before the investigating judge. She was interrogated in the absence of a lawyer by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively and denied the allegations against her. Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the judge ordered that the applicant be placed in detention on remand. The applicant was then allowed to have access to a lawyer. 7.  By an indictment dated 3 December 1996, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and nine other accused. He accused the applicant of being a member of the PKK and accordingly called for her to be sentenced pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 8.  The trial commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the subsequent twenty hearings, the court refused to release the applicant on account of the nature of the alleged offence and the state of evidence. 9.  On 2 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court concluded that the applicant was a member of the PKK and accordingly sentenced her to eight years and four months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 10.  On 20 December 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. 11.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant was released pending trial. 12.  On 9 April 2002 the court rendered its judgment and sentenced the applicant to eight years and four months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. In convicting the applicant, the State Security Court had particular regard to the applicant’s police statements. 13.  On 7 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.


5.  All the applicants were employed by RTB Bor – grupa Industrija za preradu Majdanpek, a socially-owned company based in Majdanpek (hereinafter “the debtor”). 6. Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicants brought numerous separate civil suits, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions. 7.  The applicants obtained final court judgments ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums. The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the appended table. 8.  Following a period during which the enforcement proceedings had been suspended, between June and August 2011 the final court judgments in question were all fully enforced in respect of the applicants. 9.  Since October 2011, the debtor is a company predominantly comprised of State or socially owned capital and is still in the process of being restructured.