8.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lives in Istanbul. He is the heir of Mr Mustafa Rıfat Günter and Mrs Rabia Günter. 9.  On 27 March 1985 Mr Mustafa Rıfat Günter and Mrs Rabia Günter made an oral will, in the presence of two witnesses, in which they undertook to give the property rights of their house to the Darülaceze (the poor people's house in Istanbul) in exchange for life-long support. Following this agreement, they were taken to the Darülaceze, where they died on 3 May 1985 and 2 May 1985 respectively. 10.  On 7 May 1985 the Darülaceze requested the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters to grant probate on Mr and Mrs Günter's will. On the same day the court read out the will and recognised the Darülaceze as the legal heir to their property. The decision of the court was notified to the heirs, whose names and addresses were known to the court. The applicant was not personally notified of this decision. However, a further notification was made by way of a newspaper publication for those whose names and addresses were not known to the court. 11.  On 29 December 1992 the applicant filed a petition with the Istanbul First Instance Court in Civil Matters requesting the issue of an inheritance certificate (veraset ilamı), indicating the legal heirs of Mr and Mrs Günter and determining the individual shares. 12.  On 25 May 1993 the applicant brought an action against the Darülaceze before the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters, requesting a declaration that Mr and Mrs Günter's oral will was null and void. He claimed that the will did not satisfy procedural requirements as Mr and Mrs Günter had lacked legal capacity due to their old age. The first hearing took place on 14 July 1993. The representative of the applicant requested time to submit the list of evidence. 13.  On 10 October 1993 the Treasury filed an action with a different chamber of the same court, also requesting the court to declare Mr and Mrs Günter's will null and void. 14.  On 21 October 1993 the applicant submitted his list of evidence to the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters. The court gave time to the Darülaceze to submit its list of evidence. 15.  On 16 December 1993 neither the applicant nor his representatives attended the hearing. As the Darülaceze stated that it did not wish to continue the case, the case was removed from the list. The applicant renewed the case on 28 January 1994. 16.  On 14 April 1994 the applicant did not attend the hearing, but instead he sent a letter of excuse. 17.  At the hearing on 28 April 1994, the applicant maintained that, as the case initiated before the Istanbul First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction concerning the certificate of inheritance of Mr and Mrs Günter was not finalised, the court should postpone the case until after the judicial holidays. The court adjourned the hearing until September, considering that the issue of the inheritance certificate was a prerequisite question (ön mesele) for the present case. 18.  On 20 September 1994 the applicant requested a further adjournment as the case concerning the certificate of inheritance was not finalised. 19.  On 27 December 1994 the parties did not attend the hearing. The applicant sent a letter of excuse. 20.  At the following two hearings, the applicant requested a further adjournment again because the case concerning the certificate of inheritance was not finalised. 21.  On 11 July 1995 the court decided to join the Treasury's case to the applicant's. 22.  On 3 October 1995 the court took the statements of one of the two witnesses named by the applicant. The court was unable to find the other witness as her name was misspelled. It corrected the name of the second witness and sent her a summons. 23.  At the hearings of 26 December 1995 and 2 April 1996, the court postponed the case as the applicant did not attend but sent a letter of excuse. 24.  On 27 June 1996 the second witness named by the applicant gave her statement before the court. As the case concerning the certificate of inheritance was not finalised, the court adjourned to a further date. 25.  At the hearings on 5 November 1996 and 29 January 1997, the applicant did not attend, again sending excuses, and informing the court that the case concerning the inheritance certificate was before the Court of Cassation. 26.  On 15 April 1997 the applicant submitted the inheritance certificate to the court. 27.  On 19 June 1997 the applicant requested the Court to consult with the Forensic Medicine Institute before deciding on the legal capacity of Mr and Mrs Günter. The Forensic Medicine Institute informed the court that the documents in the case-file were insufficient to decide the matter. On 16 October 1997 the court requested the Darülaceze to submit all the medical reports concerning Mr and Mrs Günter. On 18 December 1997 the Darülaceze informed the court that they did not possess any such documents. 28.  On 10 March 1998 the Forensic Medicine Institute drafted a report which concluded that it was impossible to decide the matter on the basis of the current file. 29.  On 17 March 1998 the court held that an action for the annulment of a testamentary disposition (ölüme bağlı tasarruf) must be lodged within a year of the date on which the claimant becomes aware of the reason for nullity or, in any case, within five years after the will was notified to the heirs. It noted that, although the will of Mr and Mrs Günter was notified to the heirs on 7 May 1985, the action was not brought by the applicant before 25 May 1993. It therefore concluded that the applicant's case must be dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory time-limit. The applicant appealed. 30.  On 8 October 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 15 February 1999 the applicant's request for rectification of the decision was dismissed.


4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bursa. 5.  On 8 March 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of establishing a criminal organisation and committing fraud, threats and bribery. Approximately an hour after the arrest, he underwent a medical examination. The doctor who examined the applicant noted no sign of injury on his body. 6.  On the same day, the applicant was taken to the Department of Organised Crime of the Bursa Directorate of Security, where he was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. More specifically, he was stripped naked, beaten, subjected to electric shocks, hung by the arms, forced to sit naked on cold ground bare and hosed with water. 7.  On 10 March 2000 the applicant’s wife lodged a complaint with the Bursa Public Prosecutor, claiming that her husband was being tortured. 8.  Subsequently, on the same day the Bursa Public Prosecutor initiated an investigation into the matter. 9.  On 12 March 2000, upon the request of the Bursa Directorate of Security, the Bursa Magistrates’ Court decided to prolong the applicant’s detention in police custody for three days. 10.  On 14 March 2000 the applicant was heard by the Bursa Public Prosecutor. He was then transferred to the Bursa Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute to be examined. The forensic medical report noted the applicant’s complaint as to his ill-treatment and indicated that he had two bruises measuring 8 x 3 cm and 8 x 1 cm on his left arm, a 6 x 5 cm light bruise in his right armpit, a blue-coloured bruise surrounding his left eye, several parallel scabbed lesions around his penis and a scratch measuring 2 x 1 cm below his right knee. 11.  On the same day, following a request from the Department of Organised Crime, the applicant was examined once more by another doctor, who stated that the applicant had complained of headaches, dizziness and sensitivity at the tip of the big toe of his right foot. The report drawn up by that doctor indicated that the applicant’s general health condition was good and that he was conscious. It noted that he had bruises and hyperemia on his left and right sides, further hyperemia on both his arms, scabbed lesions of 2 x 3 cm on his penis (which would probably heal in three days) and a bruise around his eye (to heal in five days). The report concluded that the injuries would not keep the applicant from daily work. 12.  On 20 March 2000 the Bursa Public Prosecutor requested the Forensic Medicine Institute to indicate, on the basis of its medical report dated 14 March 2000, whether the applicant was fit for work. On the same day, the Institute issued another report, reiterating the findings of the initial one and stating that the applicant would be unfit for routine activities for a period of three days. 13.  Following the applicant’s detention on remand, the prison doctor transferred him to the Bursa State Hospital. On 22 March 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with acute lumbar strain and discopathy by a doctor at that hospital. The doctor also indicated that the applicant suffered from spondylosis and sciatica on his right side. The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 27 March 2000. 14.  On 28 March 2000 the Bursa Public Prosecutor heard the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during his time in police custody. The applicant repeated before the Public Prosecutor that he had been stripped naked and subjected to electric shocks, hung by the arms, forced to sit on cold ground and hosed with cold water every one or two hours during the seven-day period of custody. He added that he had been blindfolded during his arrest and kept that way until he was brought before the Bursa Public Prosecutor for the first time. 15.  The next day, on 29 March 2000, the Bursa Public Prosecutor requested the Bursa Directorate of Security to list the names of the police officers who had been on duty and who had had any contact with the applicant during the time he had been held at the Department of Organised Crime. 16.  In the meantime, the issue was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Justice by one of the Members of Parliament representing Bursa. 17.  Following this event and the coverage of the issue in a local newspaper, on 6 April 2000 the Bursa Public Prosecutor submitted an information document to the Directorate of Criminal Affairs attached to the Ministry of Justice, stating that the medical reports about the applicant corroborated the allegations of ill-treatment and that he had already commenced an investigation into the matter on 10 March 2000. 18.  Subsequently, on 18 April 2000 the Bursa Directorate of Security informed the Bursa Public Prosecutor of the names of thirteen police officers on duty during the period when the alleged events took place. 19.  On 26 April 2000 the Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Bursa Assize Court, accusing all thirteen police officers listed of torture, pursuant to Article 243 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765). He maintained that the complainants’ accounts of the events and witness statements confirmed the findings of the medical reports and concluded that the seven complainants, including the applicant, had been subjected to ill‑treatment in police custody. 20.  At the first hearing on 29 June 2000, the Bursa Assize Court found that the investigation conducted by the Bursa Public Prosecutor had been inadequate. The court conducted a procedure whereby the complainants identified the police officers they had accused of torture. The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party. 21.  During the course of the ten hearings that followed, the court evaluated medical reports and documents from the Directorate of Security. It also heard statements from the accused police officers, the complainants and several witnesses. 22.  On 27 March 2003 the Bursa Assize Court acquitted ten of the officers, finding that none of the complainants, except for the applicant, had been ill-treated and that those ten officers had not been involved in the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody. The court found the other three officers, who had been identified by the applicant during the hearings, guilty as charged, having regard to the consistency of the applicant’s account of events with the medical reports. It sentenced the said three officers to ten months’ imprisonment and banned them from public service for a period of two months and fifteen days. The court finally deferred the execution of their sentences pursuant to Section 6 of Law No. 647 on the basis that the officers did not show any likelihood of reoffending. 23.  On 14 June 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court in so far as it concerned the acquittal. It quashed the part concerning the sentences, stating that the court should evaluate the case again in the light of the recent Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271), both of which had entered into force in 2005. 24.  On 1 February 2007 the Bursa Assize Court held that the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765) was more favourable for the accused police officers. The court once more sentenced them to ten months’ imprisonment and two months and fifteen days’ ban from public service. This time, the sentences were commuted into a fine of 900 Turkish liras[1] for each officer and were suspended again. 25.  The Court of Cassation quashed that judgment on 2 July 2008, maintaining that the first-instance court should have considered whether the pronouncement of the judgment could have been suspended for a period of five years (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması), pursuant to Article 231 of the recent Code on Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271). 26.  On 5 November 2008 the Bursa Assize Court held that the officers concerned had beaten and cursed the applicant and administered electroshocks on him in order to a extract confession. The court sentenced the police officers once again to ten months’ imprisonment and banned them from public service for two months and fifteen days, pursuant to Article 243 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765). Finally, it suspended the pronouncement of the judgment, having regard to the officers’ lack of criminal records and finding it unlikely that they would reoffend. 27.  The applicant objected to that decision. However, on 28 November 2008 Bursa Assize Court rejected his objection. The final decision was served on the applicant on 15 December 2008. 28.  On 12 May 2000 the Bursa Governorship assigned a chief officer to conduct a disciplinary investigation about the allegations of ill-treatment concerning thirteen police officers. 29.  The investigation began on 22 May 2000 and ended on 3 August 2000, on which date the superintendent officer drew up a report (fezleke). On the basis of two video recordings of the applicant during a search and when his statements were being taken and the statements of the police officers, the witnesses and the complainants, including the applicant, the superintendent indicated that the applicant seemed to be in good health and that the light ecchymoses indicated in the medical reports could have just as well been produced by the applicant himself. He concluded therefore that the police officers’ acts did not require disciplinary action. 30.  On 9 January 2002, having reiterated the findings of the chief officer, the Central Disciplinary Board of the Directorate of Security held that there was no ground to take disciplinary measures against the thirteen police officers.


3.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul. 4.  On 15 August 1988 the applicant brought a case before the Erdek Civil Court against the Treasury, requesting to be registered as the owner of a certain plot of land. 5.  On 17 April 1990 the Erdek Civil Court granted the applicant’s request. The Treasury appealed. 6. Whenever he inquired about the outcome of the appeal proceedings, the applicant was informed by the registry of the first-instance court that the proceedings were still pending. In 1998, however, the applicant was informed by the Court of Cassation that the latter had actually rendered its decision long before, on 28 October 1992. The Erdek Civil Court declared, in response to a petition from the applicant, that the case file had never been sent back to it and it had subsequently attempted to recreate the case file, which appeared to have been lost. 7.  On 8 May 1998 the Treasury filed a petition with the Court of Cassation requesting that the decision of 28 October 1992 be rectified. 8.  On 28 September 1998 the Court of Cassation decided that it could not examine the Treasury’s request as the reconstituted file was not sufficient and it needed the original case file for such an examination. It therefore decided to send the file back to the Erdek Civil Court. According to the information submitted by the parties to the Court, the proceedings are still pending. 9.  In 2001 the Land Registry Commission attached to the General Directorate of Land Registration conducted a land registry survey and registered the title to the relevant plot under the name of a certain K.T. and the Treasury. 10.  On 30 May 2001 the applicant brought a case before the Erdek Cadastral Court, challenging the land registry survey. 11.  On 18 May 2004 an on-site inspection of the land was carried out, and on 20 October 2004 the Erdek Cadastral Court allowed the applicant’s request in part. 12.  On 10 November 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 20 October 2004 and on 26 February 2007 it dismissed the Treasury’s rectification request.


4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest. 5.  On 23 July 1996 the applicant filed an administrative claim with the Bacău Local commission for the application of Law no. 112/1995 (“the local commission”) seeking to obtain restitution in kind of real estate (a building and its appurtenant land) located in Bacău at no. 6 Cuza-Vodă Street, in the limit of a one-third share of property. 6.  By a decision of 20 February 1997 the local commission rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that the property in question had been unlawfully nationalised by the State. Consequently, the procedure laid down in Law no. 112/1995 did not find its applicability, since it concerned only real estate that had undergone lawful nationalisation. 7.  On 20 May 1998 the applicant brought court proceedings against the Bacău Inspectorate for Culture seeking to recover possession of the claimed share of real property. 8.  By a final judgment of 24 January 2001 the Court of Appeal of Bacău rejected the action on the ground that the property had been nationalised based on the provision of the Decree-Law no. 119/1948, fact which had rendered it lawful. 9.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant filed a new administrative claim (“notificare”) pursuant to a new restitution law, that is, Law no. 10/2001, with the Bacău Inspectorate for Culture, seeking the same property rights as in 1996. 10.  On 22 June 2001 the Bacău Department for Culture, Cults and Cultural Heritage (the new title of the Bacău Inspectorate for Culture, “the Department for Culture” thereon) issued a negative answer, drawn up in general terms. Consequently, the applicant brought a court action on 18 June 2002 seeking to obtain a court order to force the Department of Culture to issue a proper official answer to her claim. 11.  On 14 January 2004 the County Court of Bacău allowed the action and ruled that the concerned authority was under the obligation to issue a “decision” which should, according to Article 23 of Law no. 10/2001, indicate the possibility of restitution in kind, and propose measures of compensation by equivalent where such restitution was not possible. The court stated that the answer issued in June 2001 failed to satisfy legal requirements. The judgment became final on 11 November 2005 before the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 12.  On 29 April 2004 the Department for Culture complied with the court order and issued a decision whereby it rejected the restitution claim. It held that restitution in kind was not possible and that the applicant was entitled to compensation according to restitution laws. 13.  On 19 May 2004, the decision was contested in court. 14.  Separately, two of the applicant’s uncles (the three of them claimed ownership rights in common for the same real estate) brought civil proceedings seeking restitution in kind of the same property, in the limit of a two-third share of property. The restitution claim was allowed by the Court of Appeal of Suceava by its decision of 1 March 2004, which ordered that two thirds of the real property be returned to the claimants as lawful owners. The decision became final on 15 September 2006 before the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 15.  On 8 June 2005 the County Court of Bacău decided to stay the proceedings until the ones brought by the applicant’s uncles had been finalised. 16.  On 11 April 2007 the legal process was resumed on the applicant’s request (filed on 20 February 2007). 17.  On 1 November 2007 the County Court of Bacău gave its judgment. Basing itself mainly on the findings of the 2004 judgment given by the Court of Appeal of Suceava, it ordered that restitution in kind be made to the applicant for one third of the real estate. It also provided for pecuniary compensation for one third of land (326, 93 sq.m.) for which restitution in kind was not possible. 18.  On appeal brought by both parties, the Court of Appeal of Bacău quashed the judgment and remitted it to the first instance court for re-examination on the merits. By its decision of 14 April 2008 the court found that the first judgment failed to comply with the guarantees of a fair trial in respect of the applicant, whose several requests in evidence had not been considered. The court pointed to a land expert study whose findings could have been essential to clear out doubts as to the current land holders. The first-instance court had also failed to indicate the amount as well as the debtor of the compensation to which the applicant was entitled. 19.  The case was registered for re-trial on 19 June 2008 before the County Court of Bacău. 20.  At the hearing of 24 September 2008 the applicant specified her property claims, in that she sought that the land holders be correctly identified and that an expert study be commissioned by the court to that effect, exactly what the higher court had previously indicated in its remittal judgment. 21.  On 21 January 2009 the court ordered for an expert study to be conducted on the real estate in the interest of both parties and established its costs. On 5 March 2009 the applicant partly complied by paying only half of the expert’s fee. She held that the rest was to be paid for the Department for Culture, as the examination served its interests as well. The expert appointed by the court conducted the examination on 18 June 2009, but failed to submit its report to the court. 22.  On 4 November 2009 the court stayed the proceedings based on Article 1551 of the Code for Civil Procedure as the parties refused to pay the expert fee and the report was essential for the court to examine the merits of the case. 23.  On 27 October 2010 subsequent to the payment of the fee by the applicant, the legal process was resumed. At the same hearing, it was postponed as the expert report had yet to be delivered. 24.  On 8 December 2010 the hearings were again deferred so that a new expert examination be conducted in the case by a newly-appointed land expert (the first expert having been suspended). However, the repeated absence of an expert report had led to the postponement of the ensuing nine hearings. The next hearing was scheduled on 16 November 2012 with the court still expecting that the expert report be drafted and submitted to it. The proceedings are thus pending before the first-instance court.


7.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Dubrovnik. 8.  On 13 August 1992 the Croatian Military Police requisitioned the applicant's vehicle for use by the Croatian Army. 9.  By a letter of 1 August 1996 the Dubrovnik Defence Office (Ured za obranu Dubrovnik) informed the applicant that the vehicle had been damaged beyond repair. 10.  On 26 May 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Dubrovniku) seeking compensation for the loss of his vehicle from the State. 11.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all actions for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed. 12.  On 2 May 2000 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation. 13.  On 1 September 2000 the Dubrovnik County Court (Županijski sud u Dubrovniku) dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision. 14.  On 21 May 2003 the applicant lodged a motion with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) seeking a review of the constitutionality of the 1999 Amendments. These proceedings are still pending. 15.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”). 16.  In 2004 the applicant's proceedings resumed pursuant to the above legislation. The proceedings are still pending.


4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Częstochowa. 5.  On 23 October 2003 the applicant, who is a police officer, was charged with abuse of powers. 6.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 5 November 2003 the applicant was released. The Kraków Appeal Prosecutor (Prokuratura Apelacyjna) suspended the applicant from professional duties and ordered that he be subjected to police supervision in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It further referred to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation. 7.  On 20 November 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the prosecutor, requesting access to the investigation file. On 28 November 2003 the prosecutor dismissed the application. He referred to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation. 8.  In the meantime, on 22 November 2003, the applicant had lodged an application for his suspension from professional duties to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. The application was dismissed by the Prosecutor of Appeal. In his decision the prosecutor referred to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation and the seriousness of the offences the applicant was charged with. 9.  In the course of the proceedings, on 4 March and 2 June 2004, 14 March 2005 and 28 April 2006, the applicant made unsuccessful applications for his suspension from professional duties to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure and he appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against decisions dismissing his applications. In his applications he referred to the poor financial situation of his family resulting from the lengthy application of the preventive measure. 10.  On 4 April 2006 the Kraków Appeal Prosecutor decided to obtain a psychiatric report on the applicant and his ability to stand trial. 11.  On 3 September 2007 the applicant lodged an application for his suspension from professional duties to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. On 2 October 2007 the Kraków Prosecutor of Appeal lifted the preventive measure. 12.  In the course of the investigation the proceedings were severed on several occasions and of the 110 suspects in this case 75 were indicted. However, the investigation concerning the remaining suspects, including the applicant, has not yet been completed.


5.  On 24 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of a criminal gang specialising in the theft of cars. On 23 November 2006 the applicant was convicted and on 25 April 2007 his conviction was upheld on appeal by the Chişinău Court of Appeal. He was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. During the criminal proceedings against him the applicant was detained in the following detention facilities:
- 26 November 2003 – 2 December 2003: Prison no. 13;
- 2 December 2003 – 14 January 2004: detention facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs;
- 14 January 2004 – 16 February 2004: Prison no. 13;
- 16 February 2004 – 25 February 2004: detention facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs;
- 25 February 2004 – 4 January 2007: Prison no. 13;
- 4 January 2007 – 1 March 2007: Prison no. 16;
- 1 March 2007 – 1 April 2008: Prison no. 13;
- 1 April 2008 – 2 June 2010: Prison no. 8;
- 2 June 2010 – 4 February 2011: Prison no. 12;
- 4 February 2011 – present: Prison no. 8. 6.  According to the applicant the conditions of detention in Prison no. 13 and Prison no. 8 were very poor and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. In respect of Prison no. 13, the applicant submitted that the cells were overcrowded and humid and there was no ventilation. He also complained about the quality and quantity of the food. As to Prison no. 8, he submitted that it was located on territory controlled by the Transdniestrian separatist authorities but was itself under the control of the Moldovan constitutional authorities. The separatist authorities had cut off the power and water supplies and disconnected the prison from the sewage network. As a result the inmates had electrical power for only three hours per day and the water was limited to fifteen litres per day, plus another fifty litres once a week for showers and washing clothes. 7.  The relevant parts of the Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning a visit to Moldova between 14 au 24 September 2007 read as follows (unofficial translation):
“84. Penitentiary establishment No. 8 in Bender had been the subject of three visits by the CPT since 2003, following the decision of the municipal authorities of Bender to deprive the establishment of running water and electricity supply (and, as of 2005, to disconnect it from the city’s sewage disposal system). The seriousness of the situation confronting the establishment led the Committee to state in the report on its visit in March 2006 that, unless the above-mentioned problems were resolved, prisoners should be relocated elsewhere. In their response to that report, the Moldovan authorities indicated that they considered the situation at Penitentiary establishment No. 8 in Bender to be under control and saw no reasons for the relocation of prisoners to other establishments. 85. When re-visited by the CPT’s delegation on 21 September 2007, the establishment was holding 99 prisoners (compared with 101 on 18 March 2006). The delegation was informed that some 35 inmates had been released since March 2006, and approximately the same number of new prisoners had been admitted. The great majority of the prisoners currently held at the establishment originated from the Transdniestrian region or nearby locations. The delegation gained the impression that all prisoners who had been admitted in the last year had themselves asked for a transfer to Bender, in particular because of wishing to be closer to their families. An examination of the documentation confirmed that newly admitted prisoners had been expressly informed of the conditions prevailing at the establishment (i.e. absence of running water, electricity and sewage disposal) and had confirmed with their signature their wish to be transferred there. Further, it appeared that the few inmates who had requested transfer to other establishments had received satisfaction. 86. As regards material conditions, in terms of living space per prisoner (some 6 m²), state of repair and decoration, the dormitories in which inmates were accommodated offered conditions superior to those witnessed at any other penitentiary establishment seen by the CPT in Moldova. Further, prisoners stated that the food they received was better than that provided elsewhere. Moreover, no problems were reported as regards the heating.
However, in the absence of any progress in the stand-off between the municipal authorities of Bender and the Moldovan authorities, electricity continued to be produced by generators and was available 3 to 4 hours a day in the evenings, enabling inmates inter alia to watch TV. Further, water was delivered regularly by a lorry‑cistern and was distributed into reservoirs supplying the kitchen and the bathroom; inmates could take a shower once a week. As for toilets, cesspools had been installed in the basements of the unused buildings. 87. Prisoners could circulate freely around the establishment’s extensive premises and engage in outdoor sports. However, there was a shortage of organised activities. Some 36 prisoners were employed in the establishment’s general services (kitchen, cleaning, repairs, etc.). Further, the establishment’s director spoke of plans to set up a carpentry workshop; however, it was unclear when these plans would materialise. 88. The delegation was informed that relations with the municipal authorities of Bender had become less tense in the last year. As a result, staff travelling across the border between Moldova and the Transdniestrian region were reportedly able to come to work on a regular basis. 89. To sum up, it is clear that the Moldovan authorities have continued to take steps to alleviate, as far as possible, the difficult situation facing Penitentiary establishment No. 8 in Bender and to ensure that the health and welfare of prisoners are protected. Further, there are signs of a more pragmatic approach on the part of both parties concerned by the stand-off. This is encouraging.


4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Landshut, Germany. 5.  In 1968 the applicant left the then communist Czechoslovakia. In 1970 she was found guilty of the offence of fleeing the Republic, and all her property was confiscated, including two plots of land (nos. 1141 and 1142) in the cadastral area of Kožichovice (“the land”). 6.  On 31 May 1976 the State transferred the right to the use of the land to the Třebíč municipality. 7.  In 1990 the majority of the land was transferred to the Třebíč cadastral area and the plots were renumbered. The land now comprises the following plots: no. 7283 and parts of nos. 7281, 7378, 2174/1, 2174/2 and 2174/3 in the cadastral area of Třebíč and nos. 1136/1, 1136/19 and a part of no. 1138/1 in the cadastral area of Kožichovice. 8.  On 27 March 1991 the Nový Jičín District Court quashed the applicant’s conviction and all ancillary decisions including the decisions on the confiscation of property with retrospective effect, pursuant to the Judicial Rehabilitation Act. 9.  According to the applicant, she had been registered as the sole owner of the land without interruption from 1960, and in support of that claim she provided extracts from the land register dated 17 September 1992 and 15 August 1995. According to the Government, both the applicant and the State were mistakenly registered as owners after 1971, when the applicant’s property was confiscated, whereas the State should have been registered as the sole owner. 10.  The municipality has been using the part of the land in the cadastral area of Třebíč, which has been partly built upon, for companies providing communal services. 11.  At the end of 1992 the applicant sent a letter to the municipality enclosing a document from the Land Registry confirming that she was the owner and the municipality as the user of the land in issue. On 10 February 1993 the municipality replied that it did not know why it was registered as the user of the land because it had not been using it. There seems to have been, however, some confusion as to which plots of land were concerned as the municipality’s letter explicitly referred to a plot with a different number, which did not in fact exist. 12.  On 7 November 1995 the municipality of Třebíč sent a letter to the applicant at an address in Slovakia, stating that she was registered as the owner of the land in the land register but that according to the 1976 transfer the land had been transferred to the municipality. The municipality therefore asked the applicant whether she could submit any documentation proving that ownership of the land had been transferred from her to the State. The letter was returned undelivered with a note that no such address existed. 13.  On 7 November 1995 the municipality of Třebíč sent a similar letter to the Třebíč District Office asking for information concerning the ownership of the land. On 4 December 1995 the District Office replied that it had no document proving a transfer of the land to the State. 14.  On 22 January 1996 a meeting took place between a representative of the municipality of Třebíč and the applicant’s husband. The record of the meeting stated that a meeting with the owner of the land, that is, the applicant, represented by her husband, had taken place and the representatives of the municipality had asked whether the applicant would be willing to sell the part of the land that was within the cadastral area of Třebíč. The applicant refused to sell it but said that she would be willing to exchange it for a plot of land of equivalent value. 15.  On 5 March 1996 the municipality of Třebíč informed the applicant that it had decided to rent that part of the land that was within the cadastral area of Třebíč. On 25 March 1996 a rental agreement was signed between the applicant and the municipality, which paid annual rent for it in 1996 and 1997. 16.  On 12 November 1997 the municipality requested to be entered in the land register as the sole owner of the part of the land that was within the cadastral area of Třebíč. The Registry granted that request. 17.  On 22 December 1997 the municipality informed the applicant that it had found a document proving that the State had acquired ownership of the land from her, namely criminal judgments given against the applicant in 1970 and 1971. The municipality had accordingly asked the Land Registry to register it as the owner of the part of the land that was within the cadastral area of Třebíč. As a result, it considered the rental agreement to have been rendered null and void and asked the applicant to return to it the rent paid for the years 1996 and 1997. 18.  Subsequently, the applicant, through her lawyer and her husband, began negotiations with the municipality to find a solution to the situation. 19.  In a letter of 10 August 1999 the municipality stated that it was the lawful owner of the part of the land that was within the cadastral area of Třebíč as the applicant had failed to claim it in restitution proceedings. It did not acknowledge any responsibility for its mistake in wrongly attributing ownership of the land to the applicant from 1992 to 1996. 20.  As there appeared to be no basis for a friendly settlement between the applicant and the municipality, the former requested the Land Registry to remedy the mistake and record her as the rightful and sole owner of the land in the register. 21.  On 23 July 2002 the Land Registry rejected her request as unfounded. 22.  On 28 September 1992 the Třebíč Building Office invited the applicant to attend proceedings regarding a request for a building permit in respect of a piece of land adjoining the part of the land that had remained within the cadastral area of Kožichovice. 23.  On 29 January 1993 the applicant sent a letter to the farming cooperative that was using the part of the land within the cadastral area of Kožichovice, requesting them to sign a rental agreement with her. There is no information in the case-file as to whether the farming cooperative replied. 24.  The village of Kožichovice requested the Land Registry to register it as the sole owner of the part of the land within the cadastral area of Kožichovice on 19 January 1995, 10 May 1996, and 14 August 1998, referring to Law no. 172/1991, by which municipalities were able to acquire ownership of certain State property. There is no information in the case-file as to which part of the land was registered as the property of the village at what time. 25.  On 24 October 2003 the applicant brought an action for the determination of the ownership of the land, claiming that she was the lawful owner, as the order for the confiscation of her property had never been executed and had now become time-barred, and she had been listed as the owner of the land both in the former land register (evidence nemovitostí) and the current one (katastr nemovitostí), and that she had been acknowledged as such by the authorities. 26.  On 20 October 2006 the Třebíč District Court found that the State had in practice seized the real property concerned in the 1970s and had subsequently exercised all the associated property rights even though both the State and the applicant had been registered as its owners in the land register. Therefore, the applicant should have claimed the plots of land under the relevant restitution legislation. Relying on the settled case-law of the Supreme Court, the court concluded that if a person could have asked for the return of a property under the restitution legislation he or she could not claim it under a general civil-law action, as the applicant was trying to do. Consequently, it dismissed the applicant’s action for lack of an urgent legal interest (naléhavý právní zájem) on the determination of ownership. 27.  The applicant appealed, stressing that at the time when the restitution legislation had been applicable there had been no one other than herself who could have been considered the owner of the plots of land. The State had treated her as the owner of the real property and thus she could not lawfully have had recourse to the restitution legislation. 28.  On 16 October 2007 the Brno Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment, referring to opinion no. Pl. ÚS – st. 21/05 of the Constitutional Court, adopted on 1 November 2005 (see paragraph 34 below). It accepted, however, that the land-registering authorities had not kept their records properly, as both the applicant and the State had been listed as owners of the same land at the same time. If for that reason filing a restitution claim, which would have been an appropriate remedy under normal circumstances, had been outside the time-limits provided by the restitution legislation, the applicant could have considered claiming compensation for administrative malpractice on the part of the authorities. In any event, a civil action was not an appropriate way of raising restitution claims. 29.  On 5 March 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant, endorsing the conclusions of the lower courts that, given that the authorities had seized the applicant’s real property by a final judgment as a result of her conviction, the applicant should have lodged a restitution claim either against the State, which was listed as the real property owner in the land register, or, failing that, with the relevant land authority, which would have made a decision as to ownership. The State had become the owner of the plots when the criminal judgment had become final, irrespective of the time when its ownership had been entered in the land register. 30.  The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, complaining under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the courts had not taken into consideration her submissions regarding the non-execution of the order for the seizure of her property and the impossibility for her to have recourse to restitution legislation. In addition, she claimed that she was unable to seek the protection of her property rights owing to the practice of the Land Registry and the decisions of the courts. 31.  On 30 July 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded, referring to its opinion no. Pl. ÚS – st. 21/05 of 1 November 2005, which stated that the applicant in that case should not have used a general civil-law action but should have lodged her claim under the restitution laws. It further found that the courts had given reasoned and convincing judgments which had observed the relevant legislation and case-law. Finally, it acknowledged that the decisions could be seen as disproportionately harsh towards the applicant, who might have been misled by the incorrect record in the land register. If that was so and the applicant had suffered damage, she could consider claiming compensation from the State under the State Liability Act.


4.  The applicant was born in 1976. 5.  On 29 December 2009 a police investigator initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and charged him with fraudulent appropriation of property. On the same day the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons. 6.  On 27 April 2010 the applicant was arrested and informed of the charges. 7.  On 29 April 2010 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by a court. 8.  On 25 June 2010 the applicant was released under a written undertaking not to abscond. 9.  In February 2011 the case was referred to the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) for trial. 10.  On 4 April 2011 the District Court held a preliminary hearing in the case. Following the request of the prosecutor, it ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should be changed and that the applicant should be placed in pre-trial detention. The court, paying regard to the fact that the applicant denied his guilt, considered that the applicant could influence witnesses, conceal or remove traces and evidence of the crime. It stated that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and his actual place of residence did not coincide with his registered address. It therefore concluded that the applicant could behave negatively and his isolation was necessary. The court noted that the applicant was of middle age, he was not a disabled person, he did not suffer from chronic illnesses, he had a family and a minor son, and that he worked as director of a company. 11.  On a number of occasions during the trial the applicant requested the District Court to change the preventive measure in his respect and release him. 12.  On 5 July, 19 August, 23 November 2011 and 17 January 2012 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s requests maintaining the impugned preventive measure. The court referred to its decision of 4 April 2011 and repeated that the applicant’s actual and registered addresses did not coincide, he was charged with a serious crime, and that there were grounds to believe that the applicant could behave negatively, if released. The court also repeated that the applicant was of middle age, he was not a disabled person, he did not suffer from chronic illnesses, he had a family and a minor son, and that he worked as director of a company. The court then found that there had been no grounds to change the preventive measure for health reasons or to apply bail; furthermore, the applicant showed no remorse and had refused to admit his guilt. 13.  On 30 January 2012 the District Court found the applicant guilty of fraudulent appropriation of property and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and ordered confiscation of his property. 14.  The Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 30 January 2012 on 9 April 2013 and 6 February 2014 respectively.


4.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1936 and 1939 respectively and live in Şanlıurfa. 5.  The applicants were co-owners of a plot of land located in Karaköprü, Şanlıurfa, registered under parcel no. 740 in the land registry. 6.  On 13 April 1989, the Governorship of Şanlıurfa decided to expropriate the applicants' land, together with other plots. The expropriation aimed at allocating the plots to the Ministry of Defence for military needs. 7.  In 1991 the Ministry of Defence seized the land without compensating the applicants. 8.  On 24 September 1996 Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu, with co‑claimants, filed a compensation claim against the Ministry for the de facto expropriation (case no. 1996/857). They submitted that the Ministry had been occupying their land since 1991 without a formal expropriation. 9.  On the same day and complaining about the same situation, Mrs Agbayır also filed a claim together with other co-claimants (case no. 1996/855). 10.  The applicants initiated both cases with partial claims, reserving their right to request additional compensation should the expert valuations exceed their partial claims. 11.  In both cases the Ministry argued that it had been occupying the land since the mid-1970s and that the claims were time-barred. The Ministry relied on Article 38 of the Expropriation Act, Law no. 2942, pursuant to which all claims for de facto expropriations were subject to a 20-year prescription period running from the seizure of the land. 12.  On 4 December 1996 the court conducted on-site examinations. The experts appointed by the court valued the land in which both Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu each held a 1/13 (one thirteenth) share at 52,517,752,560 Turkish liras (TRL), and that in which Mrs Agbayır held a 1/3 (one third) share at TRL 162,555,120,000. 13.  Accordingly, on 27 December 1996, the Şanlıurfa Civil Court handed down two judgments awarding the applicants their respective partial claims in full, i.e., TRL 80,000,000,000 to Mrs Agbayır (case no. 1998/21) and TRL 26,000,000,000 to Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu (case no. 1998/23). 14.  On appeal, the Court of Cassation quashed both judgments, directing the civil court to broaden the scope of its examination regarding the value of the land. 15.  Complying with this ruling, the Şanlıurfa Civil Court restarted the proceedings. As its further examinations resulted in the same valuations, it gave two judgments on 27 October 1998, awarding the applicants the same amounts as before. 16.  The court also ordered the plot in dispute to be registered in the name of the Treasury. In addition, it made a factual finding with respect to the year in which the seizure had taken place. Reasoning that the witness statements brought by the applicants prevailed over the documents submitted by the Ministry, the court was convinced that the seizure had happened in 1991. 17.  On 3 December 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld both judgments. 18.  On 17 May 1999 the relevant amounts, together with their statutory interest, i.e. TRL 165,577,780 (case no. 1998/21) and TRL 53,812,780 (case no. 1998/23), were paid to the applicants. 19.  As the applicants had reserved their right to additional compensation, they initiated subsequent claims to recover the difference between the amounts awarded and the values assessed by the experts and recognised by the court. In this respect, Mrs Agbayır applied, with a co‑claimant, to the Şanlıurfa Civil Court on 20 July 1999, requesting the balance of TRL 27,518,373,000 (case no. 1999/568). A day later, Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu applied to the same court requesting TRL 4,252,180,480 for each of them (case no. 1999/576). 20.  In case no. 1999/568, the court ruled on 5 October 1999 in favour of Mrs Agbayır and granted her claim in full. On 9 December 1999, however, the Court of Cassation favoured, for the first time in the relevant proceedings, the Ministry's thesis that the seizure had taken place in the mid-1970s, and most probably in 1977. Accordingly, it ruled that the additional claims had been filed outside of the 20-year prescription period of Article 38 of the Expropriation Act. 21.  On 4 May 2000 the Şanlıurfa Civil Court complied with that ruling and dismissed case no. 1999/568. On 29 June 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld this ruling. This judgment became final on 10 July 2000. 22.  The proceedings in case no. 1999/576 produced a similar outcome. The Şanlıurfa Civil Court dismissed the additional claims of Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu on 6 July 2000 for being out of time. The Court of Cassation upheld that ruling on 19 April 2001 and refused a rectification review. The judgment became final on 4 June 2001. 23.  On 10 April 2003 the Constitutional Court annulled Article 38 of the Expropriation Act.


5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in San Giovanni Lupatoto (Verona). 6.  G.S., the applicant's father, was the owner of a flat in Cagliari which he had let to G.A.S. 7.  In a registered letter of 3 June 1991, the applicant's father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date. 8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 February 1992, the applicant's father reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Cagliari Magistrate. 9.  By a decision of 23 March 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Cagliari Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 June 1992. 10.  On 20 July 1992, the applicant's father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. 11.  On an unspecified date, the applicant's father made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself. 12.  Subsequently, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 October 1992. 13.  Between 13 October 1992 and 23 June 1995, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant's father was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. 14.  On 25 May 1995, the applicant's father made a request for police assistance. 15.  On 27 July 1995, the Cagliari Prefect informed him that the police assistance would be granted after 30 September 1996. 16.  On 22 September 1997, the applicant's father died and his daughter, the actual applicant, inherited the flat and took part in the proceedings as an heir. 17.  On 13 July 1998, the Prefect informed the bailiff that the police assistance would be granted only after 31 December 1998, as there was no urgent necessity, the applicant's father having died. 18.  On 19 April 1999, the applicant served on the tenant the order to vacate the premises. 19.  On 3 May 1999, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 May 1999. 20.  On an unspecified day of May 2001, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.


4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Gdynia, Poland. 5.  On 8 May 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 9 May 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed robbery, kidnapping and larceny. 6.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 24 May 1999. 7.  On 25 January 2000 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court. 8.  The applicant’s detention was prolonged on 27 January 2000. The court reiterated the grounds originally given for his detention and stressed the gravity of the charges. 9.  On 10 April 2000 the first hearing took place before the trial court. 10.  On 18 May 2000 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s application for release. The court considered that the evidence obtained in the case sufficiently justified the charges laid against the applicant. In addition, the gravity of the charges made it probable that a heavy sentence would be imposed. 11.  Between 27 June 2000 and 17 April 2001 eight hearings took place. 12.  Subsequently, the Gdańsk Regional Court made a request under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) in which it asked that the applicant’s detention on remand be extended beyond 2 years. On 25 April 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the request. However, it extended the applicant’s detention only until 31 July 2001 and not until October 2001 as requested by the Regional Court. The appellate court considered that it was probable that the applicant had committed the crimes with which he had been charged. In addition, the case did not disclose any of the grounds for the applicant’s release listed in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings. At the same time, the court of appeal pointed out that the proceedings had already taken a long time and that any extension of his detention on remand beyond a two‑year period should only be allowed for the purposes of taking all necessary procedural steps to conclude the trial. 13.  Afterwards, hearings were held in June and July 2001. 14.  On 25 July 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 2001. It considered, however, that the proceedings in the applicant’s case had already taken a long time and that the Regional Court had been inefficient in dealing with the case. In this connection, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal pointed out that the trial court had adjourned the case for almost 50 days without giving any reasons. As a result of the adjournment the proceedings had to be recommenced. 15.  Subsequently, hearings took place before the trial court. 16.  On 26 September 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2001 relying on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and on the complexity of the case. 17.  Between 10 October 2001 and 21 January 2002 fourteen hearings were held. 18.  On 28 January 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave a judgment. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 19.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions. 20.  On 9 April 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the applicant’s conviction and remitted the case. At the same time the appellate court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 21 July 2003. The court considered that it was necessary to keep the applicant in detention since he had been charged with several crimes which represented “a significant danger to society” (o znacznej szkodliwości społecznej) and which attracted a heavy prison sentence. In addition, the evidence obtained in the case sufficiently supported the probability that the applicant had committed those crimes. Moreover, the court considered that there was a risk that the applicant would go into hiding and that he could interfere with the proceedings if released. It was recalled in this connection that the applicant had been arrested while trying to leave the country. 21.  The applicant appealed against this decision, but his appeal was dismissed on 23 April 2003 by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. 22.  On 7 October, 18 and 20 November 2003 hearings took place before the Gdańsk Regional Court. 23.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged on 8 July 2003, 20 January, 30 July and 7 December 2004. The court reiterated the original grounds for keeping him in custody, in particular the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the risk that he might receive a heavy sentence. 24.  At the hearings held on 11 January and 19 July 2005 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention relying on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the seriousness of the charges, the severity of the likely sentence and the complexity of the case. The court further stated that since not all of the witnesses had been heard, there was a risk that the applicant might attempt to influence them. 25.  On 27 October 2005 the applicant’s detention on remand was prolonged. The court repeated the grounds relied on in its previous decision given in 2005 in an almost identical manner. 26.  The applicant’s numerous appeals and requests for release were to no avail. 27.  On 27 December 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave a judgment. It convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 14 years’ imprisonment. On 12 April 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal. 28.  On 20 November 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal partly upheld the impugned judgment and reduced the applicant’s prison sentence to 11 years’ imprisonment. 29.  On 15 November 2004 the applicant lodged with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal a complaint alleging that his right to have his case examined within a reasonable time had been breached. He relied on the 2004 Act on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. 30.  On 28 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed his complaint, found that the length of the criminal proceedings pending before the Regional Court had been unreasonable and awarded the applicant PLN 3,000 in compensation. The court examined the course of the proceedings and found delays between 10 April 2000 and 6 June 2001 for which the trial court had been responsible. The Court of Appeal further instructed the trial court to accelerate its handling of the case so that the trial was concluded within a period much shorter than the one-year period envisaged. 31.  On 29 December 2005 the applicant lodged a second complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings in his case. 32.  On 28 February 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s second complaint. The court examined the course of the proceedings after 28 December 2004 and established that they had been conducted diligently and that there were no delays attributable to the trial court.


4.  On 18 June 1993 a car was broken into and a number of items were stolen. Shortly thereafter the police apprehended the applicants and took them to a police station. There they confessed that they had committed the offence and gave explanations on the manner in which they had acted. On the same day the victim of the offence was questioned. 5.  On 29 July 1993 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicants for the theft of the items from the car. 6.  On 21 April 1999 the preliminary investigation (предварително следствие) was transformed into a police investigation (дознание). 7.  On 3 February 2002 an expert report for assessing the value of the stolen items was commissioned. 8.  On 5 and 12 February 2002, respectively, the two applicants were charged and questioned as suspects. On 14 October 2002 they were questioned by a judge. 9.  Between February and June 2002 four witnesses were questioned. 10.  On 2 April 2003 the prosecution authorities filed an indictment with the Plovdiv District Court and on the 11th the President of the Court scheduled the first hearing for 15 January 2004. 11.  At the hearing held on 15 January 2004 the court approved a plea bargain agreement between the applicants and the prosecuting authorities and discontinued the proceedings.


6.  The applicant, Mr Hartwig Dreyer, is a German national who was born in 1926 and lives in Neumunster, Germany. 7.  On 8 September 1983 the Paris International Court of Arbitration ordered the company М. (“the debtor”) to pay the company Ingenieurbüro, H.D., which was solely owned and managed by the applicant, 110,000 German marks (DM), plus interest. 8.  By a final decision of 28 March 1991, the Federal Court in Belgrade recognised this decision. 9.  On 13 September 1993 the applicant sought enforcement of that decision before the Skopje Municipal Court against the debtor’s legal successors, which had resulted from its division in 1982. 10.  On 16 September 1993 the Skopje Municipal Court granted this request. On 2 March 1994 the applicant further specified the debtors, namely companies which succeeded the debtor’s legal successors after their transformation in 1990 (“the companies”). On 24 March 1994 the Skopje Municipal Court dismissed the companies’ objections that they had lacked the requisite capacity to stand in the proceedings. 11.  On 6 January 1995 the applicant specified that in 1989 the debtor had seized to exist and its rights and obligations had transferred to a newly created company M.c.o.. The applicant therefore sought the Skopje Municipal Court to amend the decision of 24 March 1994. This request remained undecided. 12.  On 12 February 1998 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the companies’ appeals and remitted the case for re-examination. 13.  On 28 April 2000 the Skopje Court of First Instance requested the applicant to specify the respective debtor or debtors, having in mind his submission of 6 January 1995 (see paragraph 11 above). On 26 May 2000 the applicant reiterated his submission of 2 March 1994 (see paragraph 10 above). 14.  On 1 March 2004 the Skopje Court of First Instance upheld the companies’ objections and set aside (“се става вон сила”) the enforcement order of 16 September 1993. The court found that the companies had not had capacity to stand in the proceedings since company M., referring presumably to M.c.o., had still existed and it was to be considered as the debtor’s legal successor liable to pay the debt. 15.  On 27 September 2004 the applicant was served with the decision of 1 March 2004 through the Embassy of the respondent State in Germany. The parties did not dispute that the applicant’s appeal of 30 April 2005, which remained undecided, was lodged out of time.


4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the village Shakhterskiy of the Tula Region. 5.  The applicant is a former serviceman. Upon his dismissal certain pecuniary benefits were not paid to him. He instituted civil proceedings for their recovery against military unit no. 23132. 6.  He had a military rank of junior sergeant in reserve at the material time. 7.  On 6 August 2001 the Tula Garrison Military Court granted the applicant’s claim. The court established that from 24 March 2000 to 4 November 2000 the applicant had performed military service in the North Caucasus Region and from 24 March 2000 to 1 May 2000 participated in the military operations in that region. The court found that the applicant was entitled to monetary compensation and the failure to pay it to him in good time constituted a violation of his rights. In its analysis the domestic court referred, inter alia, to the Law on the Status of Military Servicemen (see paragraph 19 below) which provides for entitlement of certain categories of military servicemen to additional monetary compensation, and to Decree of the Federal Government of 20 August 1999 no. 930-54 establishing the amounts of compensation due to military personnel of different ranks for their participation in the military operations on the territory of Dagestan. The court ordered the commander of the military unit concerned to pay the applicant remuneration for his participation in the military operations between 24 March and 1 May 2000 and pecuniary benefits for his service in the North Caucasus Region. An exact amount to be paid was not specified in the operative part of the judgment. 8.  The judgment entered into force on 17 September 2001. 9.  On 9 October 2001 and 5 April 2002 the Tula Garrison Military Court invited the commander of the military unit to report whether the judgment of 6 August 2001 had been executed and notified him of his responsibility for non-execution of the judgment. By letter of 5 April 2002 the court also advised the applicant of his right to ask for a writ of execution to be issued in respect of the judgment. 10.  At some point the applicant complied with the instruction and asked for a writ. On 7 May 2002 the Tula Garrison Military Court issued the writ of execution, and the enforcement proceedings were opened in respect of the judgment. 11.  Since the respondent military unit was based in Shali, Chechnya, on 19 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the writ to the Chief Bailiff of the Shali District of Chechnya. 12.  In their observations dated 14 July 2006 the Government submitted that the judgment of 6 August 2001 had not been enforced. 13.  In their further observations of 25 May 2007 the Government informed the Court that the amounts of 25,110 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 74,520 of pecuniary benefits for the applicant’s participation in the military operations in the North Caucasus Region were paid to the applicant by the command of the military unit no. 23132 on an unspecified date at his discharge from the military service. They did not submit any documents in this respect.


4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Badacsony. 5.  In the context of a 1993 dispute concerning a loan given to the applicant by a savings bank, in 1995 execution proceedings were instituted against the applicant. 6.  On 21 January 1999 the applicant filed an action with the Tapolca District Court requesting that the execution be halted or limited. On 8 March 2000 the District Court suspended the execution. On 14 November 2000 the Veszprém County Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion for bias. 7.  Hearings took place on 17 April and 18 September 2001, and on 14 March, 9 May, 11 July, 3 October and 28 November 2002. 8.  On 13 February 2003 the District Court decided to discontinue the execution but dismissed the applicant's other related claims. On 16 June 2003 he appealed concerning the latter issues. 9.  On 28 January 2004 the Somogy County Regional Court quashed that part of the decision of 13 February 2003 which had been appealed. 10.  On 13 April 2004 the Veszprém District Court was appointed to rehear the case. On 17 May 2004 the applicant modified his action. For reasons of competence, the District Court forwarded the file to the Regional Court on 3 June 2004. On 10 September 2004 the Regional Court changed this decision and referred the case back to the District Court. 11.  Hearings were held on 11 November and 16 December 2004, and on 20 January, 15 February and 8 March 2005. 12.  On 24 March 2005 the District Court partly found for the applicant. 13.  On 31 August 2005 the Somogy County Regional Court quashed this decision. 14.  In the resumed proceedings, on 1 December 2005 the District Court held a hearing. On 9 December 2005 it appointed an expert who presented his opinion on 17 February 2006. According to the information in the Court's case file, the proceedings are apparently still pending.


6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Msida. 7.  On 8 September 2009 the applicant was arrested. A search of a hotel room close to where he was apprehended revealed a number of packets of cannabis (weighing approximately 15 kg). The following day he was questioned and made a statement. On 10 September 2009, two days after his arrest, he and some other Maltese and foreign suspects were charged with the possession of cannabis not for their own exclusive use and conspiracy for the purposes of drug trafficking. They were brought before a magistrate (sitting in the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry) and remanded in custody. 8.  On 25 March 2010, following multiple bail requests which were rejected by the relevant courts, the applicant lodged constitutional redress proceedings, complaining ‒ inter alia ‒ that there had been a breach of his rights under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and requesting his immediate release as per Article 5 § 4. 9.  By a judgment of 12 August 2010, following a thorough assessment of the factual circumstances and the Court’s relevant case-law, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction dismissed the applicant’s claims, and thus did not order his release. It pointed out, however, that the decision was without prejudice to any remedies which he would be entitled to request at the proper time and if the need arose. 10.  The applicant appealed. On 18 January 2011, pending the constitutional appeal proceedings, the applicant was granted bail subject to certain conditions (including a curfew order and reporting to the police twice daily, as well as residing in an apartment rented for that purpose) against a number of guarantees, including a bail bond in the form of a deposit of 50,000 euros (EUR) and a further personal guarantee of EUR 15,000. 11.  Since the specified amount was not paid, he remained in custody. 12.  By a judgment of 14 February 2011 the Constitutional Court found a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 3 [and § 4] in view of the ongoing passage of time since the first-instance judgment, during which period the applicant’s requests had continued to be repeatedly rejected. Although the court was empowered to order release and alter the bail conditions imposed ‒ noting that by the time of the judgment the applicant had been formally granted bail ‒ it did not deem it appropriate to order release as or take any other action. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000. 13.  On 18 February 2011 the applicant asked the investigating court (Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry) to reduce the amount of the bail deposit. 14.  By a decision of 22 February 2011 the Court of Magistrates, having heard submissions, reduced the deposit to EUR 40,000 and increased the personal guarantee to EUR 60,000. 15.  On 29 March 2011, still unable to pay, the applicant asked the court to reduce the deposit even further. He referred to his wife’s testimony to the effect that the applicant and his family did not possess such funds. 16.  By a decision of 4 May 2011 the Court of Magistrates, having heard the submissions, reduced the deposit to EUR 15,000 and reduced the personal guarantee to EUR 30,000 (allowing the option of a third-party surety for that amount). However, it required that, before any surety could assume the obligation, proof of the surety’s financial capacity to furnish the requested amount be submitted. 17.  A further request to reduce the amounts was filed by the applicant on 19 July 2011. He reiterated that he did not have the financial means to pay the specified deposit. He stated that he had four dependent children and a wife back in the United Kingdom who barely had enough money to live on and struggled to meet their financial obligations, including paying the children’s school fees and the mortgage. He further submitted that since he had been detained in Malta, the family business had had to be wound up and, to make matters worse, his wife’s medical condition, which prevented her from being gainfully employed, had deteriorated. The family had been living on their meagre savings, of which very little was left at that stage. The amount required for the deposit was, in his view, not reasonable considering his means and financial status. Moreover, he had been in custody for over twenty months and despite the Constitutional Court having found a violation of his rights under Article 5 § 3 in respect of the bail refusals, he had to date not been able to enjoy that right in practice. The applicant’s wife testified to this effect. 18.  By a decision of the Court of Magistrates of 22 July 2011, after hearing the parties’ submissions and the applicant’s wife’s testimony, the court rejected the request. It noted that, according to the documents presented, the matrimonial home (which was a substantial property, demonstrating they were not an average family) was still owned by the applicant and his wife, although burdened with a substantial mortgage. Moreover, the applicant’s wife had sold off the family shoe business in 2010 “implying the inflow of a substantial amount of money within the family.” In the light of previous decisions, and the fact that the accused had no ties with Malta, the court considered that a bail deposit of EUR 15,000 was commensurate with the charges preferred against him. 19.  The applicant filed a further request on 26 July 2011, pointing out that his wife had not stated that the family business had been sold but rather that it had closed down since the applicant was in detention and the applicant’s wife was too ill to run the business. She had also emphasized that the financial means at their disposal were limited since the applicant had not been working for the past two years and she was precluded from working due to her illness, meaning that their savings had been used to meet the daily needs of the family and to pay the mortgage. Moreover, although the house seemed to be of a certain value, this had to be seen in the context of the British property market and the fact that putting the house up for sale was not envisaged. The applicant thus asked the court to review his wife’s testimony and the documents produced by her. 20.  On 12 August 2011 the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings (see below). 21.  Following the first-instance judgment of the constitutional jurisdiction (see below), by a decision of 14 March 2012 the Court of Magistrates ‒ after hearing further submissions ‒ reduced the bail deposit to EUR 7,000 and increased the personal guarantee to EUR 60,000. It drew the applicant’s attention to the other bail conditions previously imposed which were still in effect. 22.  Following a further request submitted on 23 April 2012, the Court of Magistrates on the same day allowed his request for modification of the bail conditions, reducing the deposit to EUR 5,000 and increasing the personal guarantee to EUR 70,000. There were other changes to some of the original conditions (such as having to report only once a day to the police station). The applicant deposited the sum of EUR 5,000 and was released on the same day. 23.  In the meantime, on 12 August 2011 the applicant instituted a new set of constitutional redress proceedings, complaining, inter alia, of a breach of Article 5 § 3 in the light of the high guarantees set by the Court of Magistrates, as a result of which it had not ‒ in practice ‒ been possible for him to be released on bail. The applicant’s wife gave evidence on 20 September 2011. She stated that the shop had closed down as she could not run it due to childcare and health problems, and she explained that she had sold the stock at rock-bottom prices. She described her health problems, substantiating them by means of medical reports. She further testified that the bank had foreclosed due to failure to pay the mortgage on the house, resulting in them losing their family home with all the money from the sale going to the bank. The wife stated that the family was living on state benefits, that they had no savings, that their household effects and their car had been sold, and that she had been sending money to her husband to buy necessities and was renting a flat in Malta as a bail address for the applicant. 24.  By a judgment of 16 January 2012 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence rejected the applicant’s complaint under the aforementioned provision. It observed that the Court of Magistrates had based its decision on information supplied by the applicant and as of the date of its last decree the financial and personal details available to the court had been insufficient to permit any assessment of the reasonableness of the conditions imposed. Only at a later date did more information become available, demonstrating that the applicant was to blame “when he himself brought no clear evidence of his financial and presence [recte: present] situation until late 2011.” In the light of this, the court held that the applicant’s claim was not justified. However, since by this time the applicant’s personal and financial situation was clearer, though the information was not exhaustive, the court invited the Court of Magistrates to re-evaluate the conditions imposed following the application filed by the applicant. 25.  The applicant appealed, arguing that various items of documentation including bank statements had been presented to the court; moreover, factual mistakes had been made, such as the misconception that his business had been sold and not closed down. 26.  By a judgment of 12 November 2012 the applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Constitutional Court. It observed that evidence before the Court of Magistrates had been scanty, with the exception of documents showing that the couple owned a house worth GBP 700,000 (approx. EUR 807,000) ‒ subject to a mortgage of GBP 381,000 ‒ as well as a shoe business. However, on presentation of further evidence the level of financial guarantees was lowered, the relevant court having realised that, despite the passage of time, the applicant remained unable to pay and the grounds for pre-trial detention were becoming less relevant. 27.  The applicant lodged a request for retrial, which was rejected by a judgment of 28 April 2014. 28.  Following his actual release on bail, the applicant made various requests for alteration of the conditions imposed, in particular permission to return to the United Kingdom for specific events or short intervals between court hearings to see his family. One such request was granted upon condition of presentation of the air ticket and deposit of a EUR 20,000 guarantee. It would appear that this condition could not be fulfilled. Subsequent requests were denied in view of the applicant’s inability to give any financial guarantees and considering that the applicant’s family could join him in Malta. 29.  As mentioned above, on 10 September 2009 the applicant was arraigned in court (the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry), where he pleaded not guilty to the charges. The following is a list of hearings which took place subsequently, as is apparent from the documents submitted: 30.  On 14 September 2009 the prosecuting officer and eight other police officers gave evidence, and documents were produced. On 22 September 2009 further documents were produced, and a pharmacist, another police officer and a third person gave evidence. An expert in communications technology and a translator were appointed. The former was instructed to obtain all phone data relating to the applicant between 20 August and 10 September 2009. 31.  On 3 November 2009 a copy of the inquiry was produced and one person gave evidence and produced documents. On 13 November 2009 another two police officers and a lawyer gave evidence and produced documents. A fingerprints expert was appointed. Another hearing was held on 11 December 2009. On 16 December 2009 the communications technology expert and two other individuals gave evidence. On 21 January 2010 the fingerprints expert gave evidence. On 2 February 2010, three witnesses who had already been heard gave further evidence, together with another two individuals. On 11 February 2010 another witness gave evidence and on 12 February 2010 a decree was issued by the court. 32.  On 23 March 2010 the case was adjourned as the magistrate was indisposed. On 25 March 2010 a doctor and the prosecuting officer gave evidence; the latter declared that only three witnesses remained to be heard. 33.  On 4 May 2010 the case was adjourned as the magistrate was indisposed. On 5 May 2010 a police inspector and another person gave evidence and were cross-examined. The co-accused’s lawyer complained that the proceedings were protracted. On 11 May 2010 the case was adjourned due to technical problems. On 22 June 2010 two witnesses who had already given evidence were further heard and cross-examined. The applicant’s lawyer reserved the right to further cross-examination, and requested that a witness be re-heard. 34.  On 2 July 2010 the communications technology expert was cross-examined, and it transpired that he had not asked the foreign phone providers for the records of the calls in the relevant period (see above). Another witness failed to appear, and the applicant’s lawyer requested that another witness be re-heard. On 6 July 2010 the applicant made a request for telephonic data from the United Kingdom (relating to his co-accused). On 14 July 2010 the Attorney General replied that the correct procedure to obtain such data would be by means of letters of request. On 19 July 2010 the Court of Magistrates ordered the applicant to abide by this procedure. 35.  On 4 August the hearing was adjourned. On 16 August 2010 the applicant requested the acquisition of text messages from two mobile phones in the period August to September 2009. On 17 August 2010 the Attorney General reiterated the procedure that should be used. On 19 August 2010 the applicant reiterated his request and the parties made oral submissions. On 20 August 2010 the Attorney General filed a note attaching samples of letters of request to aid the applicant making his request. On the same day and again on 7 September 2010 the applicant contested this procedure. On 15 September 2010 the applicant informed the court of his new legal representatives; the Attorney General gave evidence. On 27 September 2010 the applicant filed a request for letters rogatory to be sent to the United Kingdom. On 30 September 2010 it was noted that the aforementioned request was defective – the court reserved its decision as to whether to suspend the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence. 36.  On 1 October 2010 the applicant submitted a correct request for the telephonic data (August – September 2009). On 12 October 2012 the prosecution agreed to forward the letters in question to the relevant authorities – the court suspended the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence. On 29 October 2010 further evidence was submitted and cross-examinations were carried out. Other hearings were held on 10 and 17 November 2010. On 26 November 2010 the hearing was adjourned as one of the inspectors was indisposed. 37.  On 3 December 2010 the court noted that the letters rogatory had still not been forwarded to the United Kingdom and urged the Attorney General to inform the court about the progress of the letters. On 6 December 2010 the Attorney General stated that data had been missing in the documentation provided by the applicant. On 10 December 2010 it was noted that the data in question was still missing. On 20 December 2010 the hearing was adjourned because the presiding magistrate was indisposed. On 21 December 2010 the Attorney General returned the letters rogatory filed by the applicant to the court as they had not included all the relevant data, in particular the extract of the law relating to the charges levied against the applicant was missing. The court was informed by its staff that this document had not been submitted by the Attorney General. To avoid further loss of time, the applicant volunteered to re-submit the letters rogatory together with a printout of the relevant law bearing the visto of a representative of the Attorney General and the court granted the request. According to the Government, on 29 December 2010 it became apparent that the letters of request could not be processed by the United Kingdom central authority. 38.  A further hearing took place on 18 January 2011, at which it was ordered that an update from the United Kingdom authorities be forwarded to the parties. On 1 February 2011 the applicant was asked whether he wished to add or alter anything to the letters rogatory and on 11 February 2011 he was ordered to file a note with all the information necessary for the execution of the letters of request. On 18 February 2011, following an unfavourable reply from the United Kingdom Central Authority, the applicant asked the Attorney General to ascertain whether or not the telephone service provider was still in possession of the data requested in the letters rogatory. On 22 February 2011 evidence from two witnesses was heard. 39.  On 3 March 2011 the applicant filed fresh letters of request, which were sent to the United Kingdom on 17 March 2011. On 9 March 2011 the case was put off as the magistrate was indisposed. On 16 March 2011 an inspector gave evidence and the Attorney General was asked to give an update about the letters rogatory, which was done the following day. On 29 March 2011, the case was postponed for an unspecified reason. 40.  On 7 April 2011 one witness was heard and on 19 April 2011 another witness produced a document as evidence. On 27 April 2011 the case was adjourned. On 3 May 2011 the court stated that it would decide pending applications in camera. Another witness was heard on 13 May 2011. On 20 May 2011 the court was still waiting for the letters rogatory, so the case was adjourned. On 2 June 2011 the United Kingdom Central Authority replied, and ‒ following orders by the court of 3 and 15 June on 16 June 2011 ‒ a note was filed in court by the Attorney General, which was read out in open court on 24 June 2011. 41.  At the hearings on 6, 19 and 29 July 2011 the court declared that it had no news regarding the letters rogatory from the United Kingdom. On 31 August and 13 September the court urged the Attorney General to submit the information obtained concerning the letters rogatory. On 27 September 2011 a further reply from the United Kingdom central authorities was received, but a hearing of the same day was adjourned due to a bomb threat at the law courts. On 13 October 2011 the court received the response to the letters rogatory, stating that the data requested had been irretrievably lost. It re-activated the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence. 42.  On 2 November 2011 a police officer was cross-examined. On 22 November 2011 the case was adjourned to enable the defence lawyers to communicate with the accused. The case file was forwarded to the Attorney General. Apparently another two hearings took place on 21 December and 27 January, when the case was adjourned on the first occasion because the co-accused was not present, and on the second for an unspecified reason. On 2 February 2012 the case was adjourned for no apparent reason and on 3 February 2012 the case was again adjourned to enable the defence lawyers to communicate with the accused. The case file was forwarded to the Attorney General. 43.  On 13 March 2012 the case was again postponed until the next day for no apparent reason. On 14 March 2012, following a request by the Attorney General to restart the proceedings (Article 432 of the Laws of Malta), the charge was read out and, sworn under oath, the applicant refused to answer the questions put to him in the examination. His co-accused was questioned. The parties declared they were relying on all the evidence already produced and a prima facie decree was handed down. Thus, proceedings were then restarted and hearings were held on 19, 20, and 23 April 2012. On 5 May 2012 the case was adjourned and on 6 July 2012 the applicant requested that a witness be summoned. However, on 17 July the case was again adjourned because the witness in question was in hospital. 44.  On 28 August 2012 the applicant complained that the Attorney General had done nothing to preserve the telephone recordings which were crucial to the defence. Further evidence was heard at the hearings of 11 September 2012, 18 October and 19 December 2012, 29 January, 5 February, 14 March (when new letters rogatory were also presented), and 20 March 2013. On 30 April and 16 May 2013 the case was adjourned for an unspecified reason. On 3 May 2013 the applicant reiterated that he would like to proceed with a number of cross-examinations. The prosecution objected to the request to have the same witnesses heard again. 45.  On 26 June 2013 the applicant requested an adjournment as his lawyer was not available. A hearing took place on 25 July 2013. Further evidence was heard on 6 August 2013. On 17 September 2013 the applicant requested an adjournment. On 24 September 2013 further oral submissions were made and evidence heard, the prosecution stated that the letters rogatory did not comply with the legal requirements. The court suspended the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence. 46.  On 3 October 2013 the case was adjourned for oral submissions. The case was adjourned again on 15 and 25 October 2013 for oral submissions, inter alia, by the Attorney General concerning an application for contempt of court in his regard. 47.   Replies to the letters rogatory having been received, the court re-activated the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence on 5 November 2013. It adjourned the case once again for oral submissions. Further evidence was heard on 12 November 2013. Oral submissions were made on 28 November 2013. 48.  On 15 January 2014 the expert gave evidence and the case was adjourned to 4 February and eventually to 26 February 2014 at the applicant’s request. On 11 March 2014 the applicant stated he intended to file fresh letters of request. Letters rogatory, were exhibited in court on 22 April 2014.


4.  On 31 July 1996 the applicant was run over by a motorist, Mr A.I. As a result of the accident, her clothes were damaged and became unusable. Both of her arms, her right ear and her right leg were bruised. Shortly after that she was admitted to a hospital, where she spent a week, and was found to have a broken ankle and a traumatic brain injury. 5.  After criminal proceedings which were later converted to administrative-penal ones, in a judgment of 10 March 1997 the Sofia District Court found A.I. responsible for the accident and fined him. 6.  On 4 June 1997 the applicant brought a civil action against A.I. and his insurer. She sought 500,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL)[1] for pecuniary and BGL 2,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. 7.  Between October 1997 and March 1999 the Sofia District Court held ten hearings, the first five of which were adjourned because A.I. had not been properly summoned. The court gave judgment on 19 April 1999, awarding the applicant BGL 75,000 compensation for pecuniary and BGL 266,000 for non‑pecuniary damage. It found that there was no valid insurance contract between the insurance company and A.I. and for this reason held that the compensation was due solely by the latter. 8.  On 29 April 1999 the applicant appealed, arguing that she had suffered more serious injuries and that the compensation awarded was inadequate. A.I. also appealed. As the Sofia District Court, through which the appeals had been filed, did not process them until October 2000, the applicant made a complaint about delays. As a result, on 10 November 2000 the chairman of the Sofia City Court instructed the district judge in charge of the case to send it without delay to the Sofia City Court for examination. 9.  After holding a hearing on 7 June 2001, in a judgment of 11 July 2001 the Sofia City Court partly reversed the lower court’s judgment and found that A.I.’s insurance company was liable. The court also increased the award in respect of non‑pecuniary damage to 350 Bulgarian levs (BGN). However, the applicant’s contention that her skull had been fractured in the car accident and that this had resulted in permanent injuries was considered unsubstantiated, as no evidence in support of that had been submitted. 10.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant appealed on points of law. In November 2002, while the proceedings were pending, the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure was amended and provided that henceforth the Supreme Court of Cassation had jurisdiction to hear only cases in which the amount in issue was higher than BGN 5,000. The amendment entered into force with immediate effect and was applicable to pending cases. Accordingly, in a decision of 25 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation terminated the proceedings on the ground that the amount of the compensation claimed was below the minimum for which that court had jurisdiction to hear cases. The applicant was informed of the decision in a letter of 9 December 2002. She did not appeal against it.