5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Bratislava. 6.  On 28 January 1996 the applicant, in his capacity as an architect, concluded a contract with the Customs Directorate of the Slovak Republic (Colné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky) in which he agreed to produce project documentation for a border crossing between Slovakia and Hungary in return for a fee. 7.  On 20 April 2000 the Customs Directorate brought a civil action against the applicant for late completion of the documentation, seeking an order for the payment of a contractual penalty as well as late-payment interest on that penalty. 8.  On 24 September 2003 the Bratislava V District Court (Okresný súd) dismissed the action, but its judgment was quashed by the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) following an appeal (odvolanie) by the applicant. At the same time, the case was remitted to the District Court for re-examination. 9.  On 6 June 2005 the District Court allowed the action. It found that the applicant and the defendant had agreed on a contractual penalty amounting to 0.1% of the agreed fee per day of delay on the part of the applicant. It also found that the deadline for the applicant to fulfil his obligations under the contract had been 31 July 1997 and that the applicant had not done so until 8 March 1998. The applicant appealed. 10.  On 19 October 2005 the Regional Court declared the appeal inadmissible as having been lodged outside the statutory appeal period. It applied a legal fiction under Article 47 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 99/1963 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time), pursuant to which the commencement of the appeal period in the given circumstances is determined with reference to the third day after a written copy of the contested decision has been deposited for the appellant at the local post office, irrespective of when the decision is actually received by the appellant (see paragraph 37 below). The applicant challenged the decision of the Regional Court by way of an appeal on points of law (dovolanie) to the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd). 11.  The applicant’s appeal on points of law per se had no suspensive effect and, consequently, the judgment of 6 June 2005 was considered final and binding (see section D on “Enforcement” below). 12.  However, on 19 April 2006, the Supreme Court made a separate ruling suspending the effects of the judgment of 6 June 2005 pending the outcome of the appeal on points of law. 13.  On 7 December 2006 the Supreme Court, having found that the statutory requirements for applying the above-mentioned legal fiction had not been met, quashed the decision of 19 October 2005 and remitted the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s judgment of 6 June 2005 to the Regional Court. 14.  It was then incumbent on the Regional Court to re-examine the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the District Court of 6 June 2005. 15.  On 20 June 2007 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 6 June 2005 in so far as the applicant had been ordered to pay the contractual penalty. However, it reversed the ruling that the applicant should pay interest on the contractual fine. It held that a contractual fine and late‑payment interest had both the nature of a sanction and that cumulating these two sanction mechanisms was excluded by the nature of things. 16.  A written version of the Regional Court’s judgment of 20 June 2007 was received by the District Court on 12 July 2007. It was then incumbent on the District Court to ensure that the judgment was served on the parties in person (do vlastných rúk). 17.  According to the law, once the judgment of 20 June 2007 had been served on both parties, the matter was resolved with final and binding effect (právoplatnosť). 18.  The actual service of the written version of the judgment of 20 June 2007 was carried out as follows:
On 23 and 24 July 2007 the postal service was unable to reach the applicant’s lawyer. Accordingly, on the latter date, a written version of the judgment was deposited at the local post office and a notice to that effect was left in her mailbox.
On 24 July 2007 the judgment was served on the Customs Directorate.
On 7 August 2007 the applicant’s lawyer collected the applicant’s copy of the judgment from the post office. 19.  As to the effective service of the judgment of 20 June 2007 on the applicant, the Government have submitted – and it has not been disputed by the applicant – that it occurred on 27 July 2007, by virtue of the legal fiction (see paragraph 10 above and paragraph 37 below), three days after the deposition of the judgment at the local post office (see the preceding paragraph). 20.  The Government have also submitted – this has not been disputed by the applicant either – that the judgment actually became final and binding on the day of its effective service on the last of the parties, that is to say the applicant, on 27 July 2007. 21.  On 7 September 2007, on the applicant’s request, the District Court stamped (doložka právoplatnosti) his copy of the judgment of 6 June 2005 certifying that, together with the Regional Court’s judgment of 20 June 2007, it had become final and binding on “28 July 2005”. 22.  On 25 September 2007, the District Court provided the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) on its request (see paragraph 25 below), with a different copy of the judgment of 6 June 2005 with a similar stamp certifying that, together with the judgment of the Regional Court of 20 June 2007, it had become final and binding on 24 July 2007. 23.  The applicant then lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd).
As to the date of commencement of the two-month period for lodging the complaint (see paragraph 34 below), the applicant took as decisive the date stamped on his copy of the judgment of 6 June 2005, that is to say “28 July 2005” (see paragraph 21 above), assuming that the reference to year 2005 was an obvious typographical error actually meaning 2007, and submitted his stamped copy of that judgment to the Constitutional Court.
Accordingly, the applicant dated and mailed his complaint on 24 and 25 September 2007, respectively. The complaint was received at the Constitutional Court on 26 September 2007. 24.  The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and challenged the Regional Court’s judgment of 20 June 2007 as being contrary to his right to a fair hearing and the general prohibition of discrimination. In substance, the applicant contested the assessment of the facts and the application of the law by the ordinary courts. 25.  On 6 December 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It noted that it had procured of its own initiative a copy of the contested decisions with a stamp concerning their final and binding effect. This stamp indicated that the matter had been resolved with final and binding effect on 24 July 2007 (see paragraph 22 above).
As the applicant’s constitutional complaint had only been mailed on 25 September 2007, it had been lodged outside the two-month time-limit laid down in section 53(3) of the Constitutional Court Act (Law no. 38/1993 Coll., as amended) (see paragraph 34 below). 26.  The applicant subsequently complained to the President of the Constitutional Court that, according to his stamped copy, the challenged decisions had become final and binding on 28 July 2007, the mention of the year 2005 (see paragraph 21 above) being an obvious typographical error actually meaning 2007. He had lodged his constitutional complaint on 25 September 2007 and had therefore met the deadline. 27.  In a letter of 25 April 2008 the President of the Constitutional Court notified the applicant that the two-month time-limit for filing his constitutional complaint had commenced on 24 July 2007 when the contested decisions had become final and binding. It had accordingly ended on 24 September 2007. The applicant’s complaint had only been mailed on 25 September 2007 and had therefore failed to meet the deadline. Nevertheless, if the applicant had sustained any damage as a result of the incorrect information in the stamped copy he had received, it was open to him to claim compensation under the State Liability Act (Law no. 514/2003 Coll., as amended). 28.  On 24 January 2006 a lawyer lodged a petition on behalf of the Customs Directorate with a judicial enforcement officer (súdny exekútor) for enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2005 against the applicant. 29.  The enforcement proceedings were first authorised, but eventually discontinued in view of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 7 December 2006 (see paragraph 13 above). 30.  Nevertheless, on 11 May 2005, while the enforcement was still pending, the District Court ordered the applicant to pay the court fees for objections (námietky) that he had lodged earlier. 31.  On 31 August 2007 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision of 11 May 2005 following the applicant’s appeal. 32.  On 28 February 2008 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, in which the applicant had relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and had challenged the decision on fees for his objections as being arbitrary and contrary to his rights to a fair hearing and an effective remedy.
The Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s duty to pay the court fees had its legal basis in section 5(1) of the Court Fees Act and that the contested decision had been legally and factually correct.


5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Baku. 6.  The applicant was a journalist and the editor-in-chief of the Azadliq newspaper. 7.  On 7 November 2007 when the applicant was in front of the entrance of a publishing house in Baku, he had a verbal altercation with a woman (S.Q.) who accused him of having “abused” her. At that moment a man (V.H.) who was an acquaintance of S.Q. approached them and intervened in the quarrel. Following V.H.’s intervention, the initial verbal altercation turned into a physical altercation between the applicant and V.H., which was stopped after other people intervened. 8.  On the same day the applicant informed the media of the incident, stating that he had been attacked because of his activities as a journalist and that he had been set up. 9.  On 7 November 2007 V.H. lodged a complaint with the Yasamal District Police Office alleging that he had been beaten and insulted in front of the publishing house by a man he did not know. In his statement to the police, V.H. stated that on 7 November 2007 he took S.Q. to the publishing house by car. On their arrival, he parked the car in front of the publishing house. S.Q. crossed the street first and he followed her. At that moment he realised that a man was insulting S.Q. and that a verbal altercation occurred between them. He immediately approached the man, asking him in a normal way why he had insulted S.Q., but the man in question began to insult him. When he replied, the man physically assaulted him by first slapping him, then headbutting and punching him. They were separated by bystanders. 10.  S.Q., who was questioned on the same day by the investigator, confirmed V.H.’s statement. In particular, she stated that on 7 November 2007, while she was on the street in front of the publishing house, a man complimented her on her looks. She rebutted his compliment, saying that “she [was] not his type” and the man began to “abuse” her by calling her a prostitute. At that moment a verbal altercation occurred between her and the man. V.H was nearby and approached the man, asking him why he had insulted her. The man also began to insult V.H., and the verbal altercation turned into a physical altercation between V.H. and the man. He first slapped V.H. and then headbutted and punched him. 11.  On 7 November 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted by the Yasamal District Police Office in connection with above-mentioned incident under Article 221.1 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. 12.  On 8 November 2007 V.H. informed the police that he could identify the man with whom he had been involved in the physical altercation on 7 November 2007. V.H. said that it was the applicant and that he could identify him, having seen the applicant’s photo in the Yeni Musavat newspaper. 13.  On the same day the investigator in charge of the case contacted the applicant, asking him to come to the police office. The applicant informed him that he was not currently in Baku, but that he would come to the police office present himself on 10 November 2007. 14.  On 9 November 2007 S.Q. and V.H. were examined by a forensic expert. In respect of S.Q., the expert concluded that there were no signs of injury on her body. As regards V.H., the expert noticed that there were bruises and injuries to his nose, left ear and upper lip. The expert also observed an incomplete fracture of V.H.’s right cheekbone, noting that he had suffered a head injury. Lastly, the expert concluded that the injuries were those causing “less serious injury to health”, because they had long‑term effects. 15.  On 10 November 2007 the investigator questioned two witnesses (A.I. and V.R.), who confirmed that they had witnessed a physical altercation between two men on 7 November 2007 in front of the publishing house. They stated that one of the men, who was older and wearing glasses, punched the other man in the mouth. 16.  At around noon on 10 November 2007 the applicant presented himself at the Yasamal District Police Office. He was questioned as a witness by the investigator in connection with the incident on 7 November 2007. The applicant admitted that he had been involved in a physical altercation with V.H. that day. He said that as he approached the entrance of the publishing house, a woman who was on the street talking on her phone had insulted him. She then accused him of having “abused” her and began to shout at him and insult him. He asked her to stop insulting him and stated that he had not “abused” her. At that moment a man approached them and intervened in the verbal altercation between him and the woman. The man insulted him and then tried to punch and kick him. The applicant defended himself by pushing the man, who fell down to his knees. The applicant stated that he had neither slapped, headbutted nor punched him. 17.  On the same day face-to-face confrontations were carried out between the applicant and V.H., and between the applicant and S.Q. The applicant, V.H. and S.Q. reiterated their initial statements. The investigator also proceeded to a formal identification of the people involved and the applicant was identified by A.I. and V.R. as the older man wearing glasses who had punched the other man during the altercation. 18.  On 10 November 2007 the investigator issued a record of the applicant’s forty-eight-hour detention as a suspect (tutma protokolu) in the presence of him and his lawyer. The applicant was suspected of the deliberate infliction of less serious injury to health and hooliganism, offences under Articles 127.2.3 and 221.1 of the Criminal Code. 19.  On 10 November 2007 the applicant asked the investigator to order a new forensic examination of V.H., disputing the conclusions of the expert report of 9 November 2007. On the same day the investigator granted the applicant’s request and ordered the examination. 20.  On 23 November 2007 V.H. was again examined by a forensic expert. The expert confirmed the existence of various bruises and injuries to his nose, left ear, and upper lip, as well as an incomplete fracture of the right cheekbone and a head injury, concluding that their time of infliction corresponded to 7 November 2007. The expert also concluded that the bruise to the right cheek area and the incomplete fracture of the right cheekbone were injuries causing “less serious injury to health” with long‑term effects, and that his other injuries were those causing “minor injury to health” with short-term effects. 21.  On 11 November 2007 the applicant was charged under Articles 127.2.3 (deliberate infliction of less serious injury to health) and 221.1 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. 22.  On the same day the prosecutor asked the Yasamal District Court to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri) in respect of the applicant. To substantiate the necessity of the measure, the prosecutor gave reasons such as the likelihood of the applicant absconding from and obstructing the investigation and the nature of the criminal acts imputed to him. 23.  On 11 November 2007 a judge of the Yasamal District Court, relying on the formal charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request, remanded the applicant in custody for a period of two months. The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure as follows:
“Taking into account the likelihood, in the future, of the accused Ganimat Salim oglu Zayidov absconding from the investigation and obstructing the normal functioning of the court proceedings, reoffending ... and the fact that he poses a danger to society, the request must be granted and the preventive measure of remand in custody must be applied in his respect.” 24.  On 14 November 2007 the applicant appealed against this decision. He complained that there was insufficient evidence that he had committed a criminal offence. The applicant further complained of a lack of justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, arguing that the judge had merely relied on the prosecutor’s submissions without taking into consideration his social status, family situation, place of residence or other personal circumstances when he had ordered his detention. He also argued that the judge had not considered any alternative measures to ensure his appearance at trial. 25.  On 22 November 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the detention order was justified. The relevant part of the appellate court’s decision reads as follows:
“After having heard the explanations of the investigator, as well as the lawyer’s submissions in support of the appeal and the prosecutor’s submissions against it, the panel of the court considers that the decision should remain unchanged as it is lawful and justified, and the appeal should not be allowed as it is unjustified...
The panel of the court points out that when the first-instance court applied the preventive measure of remand in custody, it took into account the nature and degree of danger to the public of the offences with which the accused was charged, the fact that he was charged with a less serious offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation and obstruct the normal functioning of the investigation.” 26.  On 16 November 2007 the applicant lodged a request for bail with the Yasamal District Court. He argued that his detention during the investigation was unnecessary. In this connection he stated that he had no criminal record, had never tried to abscond and had always cooperated with the investigation, that he was a well-known journalist and editor-in-chief of the Azadliq newspaper, that he had a permanent place of residence, and that he was taking care of four young children. 27.  On 21 November 2007 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the request, finding the preventive measure of remand in custody justified. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“There were sufficient grounds for applying the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of Zayidov Ganimat Salim oglu. The preventive measure of remand in custody was applied by ... court decision in accordance with Article 155.2.1 of the CCrP [Code of Criminal Procedure] taking into account the gravity, nature and the circumstances of the commission of the act imputed to Zayidov Ganimat Salim oglu.
Under Article 164.4 of the CCrP, if any of the circumstances mentioned in Articles 155.1 and 155.2 of this Code exist, the court may refuse release on bail relying on relevant grounds.” 28.  On 23 November 2007 the applicant appealed against this decision. The applicant reiterated his previous arguments for release. 29.  On 7 December 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Yasamal District Court’s decision of 21 November 2007. The relevant part of the appellate court’s decision reads as follows:
“The panel of the court considers that the first-instance court was correct in dismissing the request relying on Article 164.4 of the CCrP.
If any of the circumstances mentioned in Articles 155.1 and 155.2 of the CCrP exist, the court may refuse release on bail relying on relevant grounds.
The panel of the court considers that, as the arguments put forward in the appeal lodged by the lawyers of the accused Zayidov Ganimat Salim oglu were insufficient for his release by way of [replacing] the preventive measure of remand in custody by bail, the decision of the first-instance court should remain unchanged.” 30.  On an unspecified date fourteen members of parliament lodged a request with the Prosecutor General asking for the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant to be changed, but no decision was taken in this regard. 31.  On 11 December 2007 the prosecutor in charge of the case filed the indictment with the Yasamal District Court. 32.  On 26 December 2007 the Yasamal District Court held a preliminary hearing in which it decided, inter alia, that the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged. 33.  On 7 March 2008 the Yasamal District Court sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment. 34.  The applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence by a presidential pardon given on 17 March 2010.


8.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Taganrog. 9.  The applicant worked for the Taganrog Customs Board, supervising the clearance of imported goods at a seaport customs post. In 1996 criminal proceedings were instituted against him and certain others for the alleged smuggling of considerable amounts of vodka. 10.  On 22 May 2000 the Neklinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region, composed of Judge Kink and two lay judges (народные заседатели), Ms Streblyanskaya and Ms Khovyakova, found the applicant guilty of being an accessory in the avoidance of customs duties and of abuse of office. 11.  Immediately upon his conviction, the applicant was dispensed from serving the sentence partly because of the expiry of a statutory limitation period and partly because of a 1997 amnesty law. 12.  On 26 and 29 May and 16 June 2000 the applicant and his counsel filed appeals against the judgment. 13.  On 17 August 2000 the applicant requested from the President of the Neklinovskiy District Court a list of lay judges currently serving in the court and a copy of the President’s decision selecting those lay judges who were to sit in cases under the presidency of Judge Kink between January and May 2000. 14.  On 29 August 2000 the applicant supplemented his appeal with new points. He challenged the bench that had delivered the judgment of 22 May, alleging a breach of the rules on the appointment of lay judges. In particular, the applicant submitted that, whereas the Federal Law on the Lay Judges of the Federal Courts of General Jurisdiction (“the Lay Judges Act”) allowed lay judges to be called once a year for a maximum period of fourteen days, or for as long as a specific case lasted, the lay judges Ms Streblyanskaya and Ms Khovyakova had been engaged earlier in the course of 2000 in several other trials. In addition, it was claimed that Ms Streblyanskaya’s statutory term of office had expired before the day of the applicant’s trial. 15.  On 29 August 2000 the Criminal Division of the Rostov Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals. The court also refused an application by the applicant and his counsel for access to copies of earlier judgments delivered by the Neklinovskiy District Court under the presidency of Judge Kink. The court held that the applicant had been informed of his right to challenge the bench at the outset of his trial, but he had failed to do so. No breach of the rules for the appointment of lay judges had been established. 16.  On 16 November 2000 the President of the Rostov Regional Court refused an application for supervisory review (принесение протеста в порядке надзора) of the applicant’s case. In his application to the President, the applicant had raised a new argument in support of his allegation that the judges had not been appointed according to the applicable rules: it was claimed that there was nothing to indicate that the judges had been drawn at random by lot as required by the Lay Judges Act. The President rejected the applicant’s earlier argument as to the expiry of the judges’ term, referring to the Presidential Decree of 25 January 2000, whereby the terms of lay judges already in office had been extended pending the appointment of new ones. The President noted that the list of lay judges for the Rostov Region had been drawn up on 18 October 2000, after the applicant’s conviction. No answer was given to the applicant’s allegation that the judges had not been drawn by lot. 17.  On 20 February 2001 the President of the Rostov Regional Court refused another application by the applicant for a supervisory review. 18.  In August and October 2001 the applicant requested the President of the Legislature of the Neklinovskiy District to provide information concerning the lay judges who had been authorised to sit in cases during the period between 10 and 22 May 2000. 19.  On 2 October 2001 the Neklinovskiy District Authority informed the applicant that the pertinent list of lay judges for the Neklinovskiy District had been compiled on 4 February 2000 and confirmed by the Legislature of the Rostov Region on 15 June 2000. 20.  On an unspecified date following communication of the present application to the Government, the President of the Rostov Regional Court lodged an application for a supervisory review of the case on the ground that the judgment of 22 May 2000 had not described in sufficient detail the offence committed by the applicant and his accomplices. 21.  On 3 May 2001 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court granted the application, partly quashed the judgment of 22 May 2000 and the appeal judgment of 29 August 2000, and ordered a fresh examination of the case. 22.  On 2 July 2001 the Neklinovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of the same offences but dispensed him from serving the sentence because the case was time-barred. 23.  An appeal by the applicant was dismissed by the Rostov Regional Court on 2 October 2001 and the judgment became final. 24.  Following another application for supervisory review lodged by the President of the Rostov Regional Court on an unspecified date, the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court on 31 January 2002 quashed the decisions given on 2 July and 2 October 2001. It found that the courts were not in a position to decide on the applicant’s guilt because the whole case was time-barred.
С.  Further developments 25.  Following the request of the applicant’s lawyer, on 28 August 2002 the Neklinovskiy District Authority informed the applicant that the list of lay judges serving in the district had been adopted by a decision of the District Legislature on 4 February 2000 and confirmed by a decision of the Rostov Regional Legislature on 15 June 2000. 26.  On 4 October 2002, the Neklinovskiy District Authority informed the applicant that there was no record of any adoption of lay judges’ lists before 4 February 2000 [The original letter indicated the date as “4 February 2002”, apparently a typographical error].


4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov. 5.  The applicant was employed by the District National Committee (Okresný národný výbor) in Bardejov. In 1988 he was dismissed for breach of discipline. Subsequently courts at two levels of jurisdiction declared the dismissal unlawful. Their decisions became final on 2 August 1991.
 In 1990, while the above proceedings were pending, the national committees ceased to exist ex lege and their liquidation was formally completed on 31 July 1991. The national committees were replaced by district offices (okresné úrady) which were not, strictly speaking, the legal successors to the former. 6.  On 2 September 1991 the Bardejov District Office terminated the applicant’s contract of employment on the ground that the district national committee which had formerly employed him had ceased to exist. The applicant challenged this decision. He argued, in particular, that the government regulations on the liquidation of the former national committees were unlawful, that he had become an employee of the Bardejov District Office after his dismissal in 1988 was declared unlawful on 2 August 1991, and that the District Office had paid his salary until the end of 1991. He claimed compensation for damage caused by the termination of his contract of employment. 7.  On 6 March 1996 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment dismissing the action. 8.  The proceedings described below relate to the applicant’s subsequent attempts to obtain redress for the termination of his contract of employment. 2.1  Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 27 May 1996 (the Bardejov District Court file no. 4C 451/96) 9.  On 27 May 1996 the applicant sued the Bardejov District Office for a severance payment in respect of his dismissal in 1991. He further claimed a certificate of employment. 10.  On 11 October 1996 the Bardejov District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay a court fee. On 11 September 1998 it asked him for further particulars of his claim. 11.  On 30 May 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of three claims which the applicant had withdrawn. It further decided to examine the remaining claim concerning a severance payment separately (see proceedings no. 4C 52/03 described below). 12.  The applicant appealed. 13.  On 28 February 2002 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the three claims. That decision became final on 28 January 2003. The Regional Court further rejected the remainder of the appeal as no appeal lay in respect of a procedural decision to examine a claim in separate proceedings. 14.  On 23 December 2002 the applicant appealed on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision. The District Court, which processed the appeal on points of law prior to its submission to the Supreme Court, requested further information from him on 27 January 2003. 15.  After obtaining the relevant information the District Court appointed a lawyer on 21 February 2005 to represent the applicant in the cassation proceedings. On 22 March 2005 the District Court again invited the applicant to give further details of his appeal. 16.  On 11 August 2005 the Supreme Court declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible as none of the statutory grounds permitting the use of that remedy had been established. 2.2  Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for a severance payment (the Bardejov District Court file No. 4C 52/03) 17.  The Bardejov District Court started dealing with the claim for a severance payment (which had been filed on 27 May 1996 – see paragraphs 9 and 11 above) on 14 March 2003. 18.  Between 14 October 2003 and 22 September 2005 it held six hearings at which the applicant failed to appear. He informed the court that he did not wish to attend. 19.  On 9 August 2004 the applicant asked for the trial judge to be required to stand down because of excessive delays in the proceedings and because the judge had been excluded for bias from two other sets of proceedings to which the applicant was a party. 20.  On 13 August 2004 the Prešov Regional Court found no relevant reason for requiring the judge to stand down. 21.  The proceedings are still pending. 22.  On 20 March 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. He alleged a violation of his right to have the case determined without undue delay in the proceedings before the Bardejov District Court registered under file no. 4C 451/96. The applicant stated, inter alia, that the merits of his action had still not been determined after six years. He also alleged that his right to judicial protection had been jeopardised as a result of the length of the proceedings. 23.  On 2 October 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint. It noted that the applicant, who was represented by an advocate, complained exclusively of the Bardejov District Court proceedings no. 4C 451/96. It noted that under section 20(3) of the Constitutional Court Act it was bound by plaintiffs’ submissions as to the subject-matter of proceedings. It was the Constitutional Court’s practice to examine length-of-proceedings complaints only where the proceedings complained of were still pending before the authority liable for the alleged violation when the complaint to the Constitutional Court was filed. That requirement had not been met as regards the applicant’s complaint concerning the District Court’s conduct in proceedings no. 4C 451/96 since that court’s decision of 30 May 2001 had become final on 28 January 2003. 3.1  Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 13 July 1998 (the Bardejov District Court file no. 4C 966/98) 24.  On 13 July 1998 the applicant brought an action in the Bardejov District Court. He submitted that the State, represented by the Bardejov District Office, should be ordered to assign him work under a contract of employment and to satisfy his related financial claims. 25.  On 14 December 1998 the District Court invited the applicant to submit further details of his claims. The applicant replied on 17 December 1998. 26.  On 9 October 1999 the District Court informed the applicant that the claim was still incomplete. The applicant replied on 15 October 1999. 27.  On 10 December 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to submit his claim in accordance with the formal requirements. The applicant appealed. The District Court submitted the case to the court of appeal on 25 February 2002. 28.  On 30 September 2002 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision. 29.  On 3 December 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. On 6 January 2003 he specified his grounds of appeal. He requested that he should be exempted from the obligation to pay a court fee and that the District Court should appoint a lawyer to represent him in the cassation proceedings. On 4 February 2003 the applicant submitted information about his financial situation. 30.  On 7 April 2003 the applicant informed the President of the District Court in separate proceedings that he was ill and unable to respond to the court’s requests. On 25 June 2003 he informed the District Court that he was no longer prevented from pursuing his cases. 31.  On 7 November 2003 the district-court judge involved in the preliminary processing of the applicant’s appeal on points of law asked for permission to withdraw from the case. On 26 November 2003 the Regional Court in Prešov dismissed her request. 32.  On 29 January 2004 the District Court asked the applicant for details of any change in his situation compared with that set out in his statement of 4 February 2003. The applicant replied on 8 March 2004. 33.  On 9 March 2004 the District Court asked the applicant to prove his and his wife’s income. The applicant submitted the relevant documents on 1 April 2004. 34.  On 3 June 2004 the District Court decided not to exempt the applicant from the obligation to pay a court fee. On 28 July 2004 he appealed. The Regional Court upheld the decision on 23 August 2004. 35.  On 28 October 2004 the District Court asked the applicant to provide further particulars of his appeal on points of law and to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the cassation proceedings. The applicant replied on 10 November 2004. The District Court transferred the file to the Supreme Court on 27 December 2004. 36.  On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant’s appeal on points of law on the ground that the applicant had not complied with the statutory requirement of compulsory legal representation. That decision became final on 7 March 2005. 37.  On 15 February 2002 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings in his action commenced on 13 July 1998. 38.  On 25 June 2003 the Constitutional Court found that during the relevant period, which had lasted from 13 July 1998 to 25 February 2002, the Bardejov District Court had infringed the applicant’s constitutional right to have the case decided without undue delay. The District Court had been inactive without any justification between 16 October 1999 and 10 December 2001. The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings as he had failed to rectify defects in his action despite the District Court’s requests (period until 15 October 1999). The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK), which was equivalent to 477 euros (EUR) at that time, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the reimbursement of the applicant’s costs.
b) Complaint of 5 February 2004 39.  On 5 February 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the way in which the Bardejov District Court had processed his appeal on points of law had infringed his right to a hearing without unjustified delay. 40.  On 14 May 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. The length of the proceedings under consideration (from 3 December 2002 to 5 February 2004) was not excessive in view of the fact that the District Court had dealt with the applicant’s procedural motions for exemption from the obligation to pay a court fee and for appointment of a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings. The Constitutional Court also noted that in the relevant period the applicant had informed the District Court that health problems were preventing him from pursuing his cases. 4.1  Action of 13 July 1998 concerning the validity of the applicant’s contract of employment (the Bardejov District Court file no. 4C 968/98) 41.  On 13 July 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bardejov District Court, alleging that his employment with the Bardejov District Office still subsisted. 42.  On 2 March 2007 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment of 10 March 2006 dismissing the applicant’s action. The Regional Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 26 March 2007. 43.  On 23 April 2007 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. The Supreme Court declared it inadmissible on 14 February 2008. 44.  On 19 February 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about delays in the Bardejov District Court proceedings no. 4C 968/98. 45.  On 28 March 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as the applicant had not first sought redress from the President of the District Court pursuant to the relevant provisions of the State Administration of Courts Act 1992.
b) Complaint of 21 May 2007 46.  On 21 May 2007 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the Bardejov District Court and the Prešov Regional Court, in the proceedings leading to the latter court’s judgment of 2 March 2007, had violated his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The applicant also relied on Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention. 47.  The Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on 6 November 2007. As regards the complaint about the length of the proceedings, it observed that it had been filed after the courts concerned had decided the case, so that in accordance with its established case-law, the Constitutional Court lacked power to examine the complaint. 5.1  Proceedings concerning the applicant’s actions of 9 November 1998 and 11 December 2002 (Bardejov District Court files nos. 4C 1620/98 and No. 3C 569/02)
a) Action of 9 November 1998 (proceedings no. 4C 1620/98) 48.  On 9 November 1998 the applicant brought an action against the State represented by the Ministry of the Interior and the Bardejov District Office. He claimed that the defendant should be ordered to assign him work under a contract of employment and to pay him arrears of salary. 49.  On 21 May 1999 the Bardejov District Court directed the applicant, on pain of discontinuing the proceedings, to specify the sum of salary arrears claimed and to indicate which authority should be ordered to satisfy his claims. 50.  The applicant replied on 6 June 1999. He stated, inter alia, that the State represented by the Bardejov District Office should be ordered to satisfy his claims. He asked for the arrears of salary to be determined in the course of the proceedings. 51.  On 17 June 1999 and 27 January 2000 the District Court summoned the applicant for an interview. In letters of 29 July 1999 and 8 February 2000 the applicant replied that his state of health did not allow him to attend and that that was likely to be the position for some time. 52.  On 19 March 2002 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to rectify defects in his claim despite its request for him to do so. The court found that in his letter of 6 June 1999 the applicant had not sufficiently specified his claim. Its decision was served on the applicant on 22 March 2002. The applicant did not have a right of appeal. 53.  On 29 March 2002 the applicant filed a motion with the Office of the Prosecutor General for an extraordinary appeal on points of law to be lodged against the District Court’s decision. In a letter of 29 April 2002 he was informed that the requested remedy could not be used. 54.  On 22 April 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the District Court’s decision. The District Court, which was responsible for preparing the file for examination by the Supreme Court, invited the applicant to rectify defects in his appeal on points of law. The applicant replied on 10 June 2002 and the District Court submitted the file to the Supreme Court. 55.  On 22 August 2002 the Supreme Court returned the file to the District Court on the ground that no appeal on points of law lay against decisions of first-instance courts. The letter stated that the file should be submitted to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office so that an extraordinary appeal on points of law could be lodged if appropriate.
b) Action of 11 December 2002 (proceedings no. 3C 569/02) 56.  In a fresh action filed on 11 December 2002 the applicant reiterated his employment-related claims. 57.  The Bardejov District Court dismissed the action on 7 July 2004. On 20 September 2004 the applicant appealed. 58.  On 27 January 2005 the Prešov Regional Court dismissed the appeal as having been submitted outside the statutory fifteen-day time-limit. The decision stated that the postal services had twice attempted to serve the first-instance decision on the applicant at his address. As that had not been possible, he had been notified that the mail would be deposited at the post office. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decision was deemed to have been served on the third day after it was deposited with the post office, namely on 23 August 2004. The applicant had collected the mail at the post office on 6 September 2004. 59.  Prior to its decision the Regional Court asked the applicant whether he had been at his address on 19 and 20 August 2004 when the postal services had attempted to serve the first-instance decision on him and, if not, to provide evidence of his absence. The applicant replied that he was not obliged to reveal information about his private life. 60.  In a complaint of 26 November 2002 the applicant alleged a violation of his right to judicial protection in that the Supreme Court had not delivered a formal decision on his appeal on points of law of 22 April 2002 in proceedings no. 4C 1620/98. 61.  On 8 January 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. It held that the action taken by the Supreme Court had not led to a constitutionally unacceptable interference with the applicant’s rights. In particular, with reference to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Constitutional Court observed that an appeal on points of law was available only in respect of final decisions of courts of appeal. As the cassation appeal was not available in the applicant’s case, the Supreme Court’s failure to formally reject the applicant’s appeal on points of law had therefore not been contrary to his right to judicial protection in the circumstances of the case.
b) Complaint of 10 February 2005 62.  On 10 February 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the Prešov Regional Court had infringed Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 by requesting him to inform it of his whereabouts. 63.  On 16 April 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint manifestly ill-founded. It noted that the information requested by the Regional Court was pertinent for establishing the date of service of the first-instance decision and, consequently, for the determination of whether the applicant had lodged his appeal in time. 6.1  Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 26 November 1998 (Bardejov District Court file no. 4C 1676/98) 64.  On 26 November 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against the Bardejov District Office claiming salary arrears from 1 January 1992. On 25 January 1999 the District Court asked the applicant for further information. He replied on 27 February 1999 and 14 March 1999. 65.  On 17 March 1999 the applicant was asked to pay a court fee. He sought exemption from this obligation on the grounds that he was indigent. The court summoned him to hearings scheduled for 10 October 2000 and 12 November 2002 respectively, but he said he could not attend. 66.  On 5 June 2002 the applicant challenged the District Court judge for bias. The challenge was submitted to the Prešov Regional Court, which dismissed it on 6 August 2002. 67.  On 7 November 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision of 6 August 2002. On 10 February 2003 he requested that the District Court appoint a lawyer to represent him in the cassation proceedings. He also challenged the District Court judge. On 13 October 2003 the Regional Court held that the judge was not excluded from dealing with the case in the context of the cassation proceedings. 68.  On 7 January 2004 the District Court assigned a lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings concerning his appeal on points of law. On 31 January 2004 the applicant appealed against that decision. 69.  In a letter of 3 February 2004 the District Court invited the applicant to inform the court whether he had been at his home between 8 January and 16 January 2004, to enable it to establish the date of service of the District Court’s decision of 7 January 2004. In a letter of 26 March 2004, the applicant replied that he was not obliged to inform the court of his whereabouts. 70.  On 26 May 2004 the Regional Court rejected the appeal against the District Court’s decision of 7 January 2004 to appoint a lawyer as being out of time. 71.  On 23 November 2006 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings on the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision of 6 August 2002 as it lacked jurisdiction to review in cassation proceedings a decision whether or not to exclude a judge. 72.  It appears that the proceedings on the merits are still pending. 73.  On 14 April 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the Bardejov District Court had infringed his right to a hearing within a reasonable time when dealing with his appeal on points of law of 7 November 2002. 74.  On 1 December 2004 the Constitutional Court, with reference to the length of the relevant proceedings (17 months) and the action taken by the District Court, dismissed the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded.
b) Complaint of 3 April 2007 75.  On 3 April 2007 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings concerning his appeal on points of law of 7 November 2002. He also complained that the Supreme Court’s decision of 23 November 2006 had infringed his right to a hearing by a tribunal. Finally, he alleged that the Prešov Regional Court had infringed Article 6 § 1 by its above decisions of 6 August 2002 and 13 October 2003. 76.  On 24 May 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. It found that the complaint about the length of the proceedings on the appeal on points of law had been lodged out of time as the Supreme Court’s decision of 23 November 2006 to discontinue the proceedings had been served on the applicant on 15 February 2007. Similarly, the two Regional Court’s decisions had become final on 7 October 2002 and 18 December 2003 respectively. The applicant’s complaint in that respect had been filed outside the statutory two-month time-limit. Finally, the Constitutional Court held that the Supreme Court’s decision, delivered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, to discontinue for lack of jurisdiction cassation proceedings related to the Regional Court’s decision on the applicant’s request for exclusion of a judge did not contravene his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or its constitutional equivalent.


11.  The applicant was born in 1940 and is currently in compulsory residence at San Secondo Hospital – Fidenza (Parma). 12.  On 2 September 1999, after a violent family dispute, the applicant killed his wife and injured one of his sons. He was arrested the following day. 13.  At the end of the preliminary investigation the Rome prosecution service asked for the applicant to be committed to stand trial for murder, attempted murder, ill-treatment of his family and unauthorised possession of a firearm. 14.  On 24 November 2000, under the summary procedure under which the applicant had elected to stand trial, the Rome preliminary hearings judge (giudice dell’udienza preliminare) found the applicant guilty of all the charges and noted that he should be sentenced to life imprisonment. However, because the summary procedure had been used, he sentenced the applicant to thirty years’ imprisonment and a lifetime ban from public office within the meaning of Article 29 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 36 below). 15.  The judge noted that the applicant had first attempted to strangle his wife with the cable of the telephone she had used to call the police. Then, when his wife and children ran out of the flat and down the stairwell of the building, he had fired several shots at his wife at close range, and at one of his sons, who had initially been ahead of his mother but had gone back to help her. 16.  In fixing the sentence the judge took into account certain aggravating circumstances, namely the fact that the applicant’s criminal behaviour had been against his own family and had been triggered by so trifling an incident as his children having allegedly broken his mobile phone. 17.  The judge made no allowance for the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record, an argument the applicant had relied on as a mitigating circumstance. He found that the applicant’s attitude in denying some of his actions and blaming his family, who he claimed were guilty of rebelling against his authority, showed that he felt no remorse whatsoever. 18.  Lastly, the judge noted that according to witness statements the applicant had been responsible for other episodes of violence over the past twenty years, such as insults, physical violence and threats against his wife and children, including with weapons. 19.  Both the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the applicant appealed against that judgment, and in a judgment of 10 January 2002 the Rome Assize Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment, upholding the conclusions of the preliminary hearings judge as to which aggravating and mitigating circumstances should be taken into account. 20.  The applicant appealed on points of law, and in a judgment deposited with its registry on 20 January 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. 21.  Under Article 29 of the Criminal Code, the life sentence imposed on the applicant entailed a lifetime ban from public office, which in turn led to the permanent forfeiture of his right to vote, in conformity with section 2 of Presidential Decree no. 223 of 20 March 1967 (“Decree no. 223/1967” – see paragraph 33 below). 22.  The applicant’s disenfranchisement was not mentioned in the judgments against him. 23.  In application of section 32 of Decree no. 223/1967 (see paragraph 35 below), on 2 April 2003 the electoral committee deleted the applicant’s name from the electoral roll. 24.  On 30 June 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the electoral committee. Referring to the Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) judgment (no. 74025/01, 30 March 2004), amongst other authorities, he alleged that depriving him of the right to vote was incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 25.  The complaint was rejected, and on 16 July 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Rome Court of Appeal. He contended that the fact that the removal of his name from the electoral roll, as an automatic consequence of his life sentence and lifetime ban from public office, was incompatible with his right to vote guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 26.  By a judgment deposited with its registry on 29 November 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It pointed out that, unlike in the Hirst (no. 2) case (cited above), where every person sentenced to imprisonment was divested of the right to vote, with no assessment of the competing interests or the proportionality of the measure, in Italian law the impugned measure was applied only where the offence was punishable with a particularly heavy sentence, including life imprisonment. The court found that the automatic aspect of the application of the voting ban to any custodial sentence was lacking in the applicant’s case. 27.  The applicant appealed on points of law, alleging, inter alia, that his disenfranchisement was a consequence of the ancillary penalty banning him from public office (which was itself the result of the main penalty imposed on him). In his view the impugned ban had nothing to do with the offence committed and the courts had no power to decide to apply such a measure. 28.  In a judgment deposited with its registry on 17 January 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal. First, it referred to the Hirst (no. 2) judgment of 6 October 2005 (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 77, ECHR 2005‑IX), where the Grand Chamber considered that the withdrawal of voting rights in the United Kingdom “concern[ed] a wide range of offenders and sentences, from one day to life and from relatively minor offences to offences of the utmost gravity”. It then noted that in Italian law, under Article 29 of the Criminal Code, only those offenders sentenced to at least three years’ imprisonment were deprived of the right to vote. Where the offence attracted a sentence of less than five years, the disenfranchisement lasted only five years, a lifelong ban on voting being reserved for offenders sentenced to between five years and life. 29.  On 24 March 2003, the applicant lodged an application with the Court alleging, inter alia, that his life sentence had breached Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. 30.  In a judgment of 17 September 2009 the Grand Chamber of the Court found violations of those Articles (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, 17 September 2009). 31.  Ruling on Article 46 of the Convention, the Grand Chamber indicated that “Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the urgent need to put an end to the breach of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, the Court therefore considers that the respondent State is responsible for ensuring that the applicant’s sentence of life imprisonment is replaced by a penalty consistent with the principles set out in the present judgment, which is a sentence not exceeding thirty years’ imprisonment.” (see Scoppola (no. 2), cited above, § 154). 32.  Consequently, by a judgment deposited with its registry on 28 April 2010, the Court of Cassation reversed its judgment of 20 January 2003 (see paragraph 20 above), set aside the judgment of the Rome Assize Court of Appeal of 10 January 2002 (see paragraph 19 above) and fixed the applicant’s sentence at thirty years’ imprisonment.


4.  The applicants live in Mersin. 5.  On 27 March 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicants in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place. 6.  Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 14 October 1997 the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded them additional compensation of 1,503,941,200 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 25 May 1994, the date of the seizure of the plots by the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways. 7.  On 16 February 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance. 8.  On 16 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicants TRL 4,442,320,000 (approximately 7,694 euros (EUR), interest included.


5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Lukavac. 6.  On 16 August 1999 the local police searched the applicant and found a hand grenade on him. The police acted on a tip-off because the applicant had a history of violent outbursts, including the killing of his first wife. 7.  On 24 January 2000 he was charged with possessing a prohibited weapon. 8.  On 14 November 2001 the Gračanica Municipal Court found the applicant not guilty by reason of insanity (paranoid schizophrenia) and imposed a hospital order on him under Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1998 (“old Criminal Code”). The decision entered into force on 28 January 2002. 9.  On 28 June 2002 he was placed in Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex. 10.  On 4 July 2003 the Gračanica Municipal Court reviewed the necessity of the applicant’s continued confinement pursuant to Article 480 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1998 (“old Code of Criminal Procedure”). It decided on the basis of reports prepared by Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex that the applicant’s condition did not allow for his discharge. 11.  On 11 November 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Chamber concerning the lawfulness of his detention. 12.  On 3 March 2004 the Gračanica Municipal Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Social Work Centre in Gračanica pursuant to Article 420 of the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2003 (“new Criminal Code”). 13.  On 23 November 2004 the Social Work Centre in Gračanica established that the applicant’s mental disorder no longer warranted his confinement and ordered his conditional discharge. He was released from Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex on 8 December 2004. 14.  In the light of the applicant’s release, on 26 June 2007 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”), the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber, held that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the applicant’s case. 15.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in a care home in Fojnica. 16.  On 31 March 1999 he threatened Z.B. with a knife on the premises of the Social Work Centre in Goražde. 17.  On 16 April 1999 he was charged with threatening behaviour. 18.  On 17 June 1999 the Goražde Municipal Court found the applicant not guilty by reason of insanity (schizophrenia) and imposed a hospital order on him under Article 63 of the old Criminal Code. The decision entered into force immediately. 19.  On 21 June 1999 the applicant was placed in Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex. 20.  On 26 November 2001 the Goražde Municipal Court established that the applicant’s mental disorder no longer warranted his confinement and ordered his conditional discharge. He was released on 9 January 2002. 21.  On 17 January 2002 the Goražde Municipal Court recalled the applicant to Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex, after he had been found to be abnormally aggressive by Sarajevo Psychiatric Hospital. 22.  On 21 January 2003 the applicant complained of the unfairness and outcome of the criminal proceedings (which had ended on 17 June 1999) to the Human Rights Chamber. 23.  On 20 January 2004 the Goražde Municipal Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Social Work Centre in Goražde pursuant to Article 420 of the new Criminal Code. 24.  Relying on section 22 of the Mental Health Act of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2001 (“Mental Health Act”), on 18 February 2004 the Social Work Centre in Goražde reviewed the necessity of the applicant’s continued confinement. It decided on the basis of reports prepared by Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex that the applicant’s condition did not allow for his discharge. The applicant appealed to the Cantonal Ministry for Social Affairs in Goražde pursuant to the instructions of the social work centre. 25.  On 10 May 2004 the Cantonal Ministry for Social Affairs in Goražde declined jurisdiction and, since it was unable to determine the competent body to which to transfer the file, dismissed the appeal. The applicant lodged a further appeal with the Goražde Cantonal Court. 26.  On 9 July 2004 the Goražde Cantonal Court dismissed the appeal because the applicant had not appealed to the competent second-instance body. The Goražde Cantonal Court was silent regarding which body was competent at second instance. 27.  On 22 November 2004 the applicant complained of the unlawfulness of his detention to special chambers which had been created within the Constitutional Court on 1 January 2004 with a mandate to decide on cases received by the former Human Rights Chamber (namely, the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court). 28.  On 13 June 2006 the Social Work Centre in Goražde established that the applicant’s mental disorder no longer warranted his confinement and ordered his unconditional discharge. It relied on section 25(2) of the Mental Health Act. The applicant was released from Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex on 16 June 2006. 29.  On 26 June 2007 the Constitutional Court, the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber, dismissed the applicant’s complaint of 21 January 2003 as out of time and that of 22 November 2004 as incompatible ratione temporis: the Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to deal only with those unresolved cases of the former Human Rights Chamber which had been introduced by 31 December 2003. 30.  The applicant was born in 1966. He is still in Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex. 31.  On 12 July 1999 the applicant killed his parents under the delusion that they were trying to kill him. On the same day, having surrendered himself to the police, the applicant was remanded in custody. 32.  On 21 September 1999 he was charged with two counts of murder. 33.  On 9 November 1999 the Mostar Cantonal Court found the applicant not guilty by reason of insanity (schizophrenia) and imposed a hospital order on him under Article 63 of the old Criminal Code. The decision entered into force on 22 November 1999. 34.  On 28 November 2000 the applicant was transferred from the remand section of Mostar Prison to Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex. 35.  On 20 December 2002 and 22 October 2003 the Mostar Cantonal Court reviewed the necessity of the applicant’s continued confinement pursuant to Article 480 § 1 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure (notwithstanding the fact that the Code was in force only until 31 July 2003). It decided on the basis of reports prepared by Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex that the applicant’s condition did not allow for his discharge. 36.  On or around 23 March 2004 the Mostar Cantonal Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Social Work Centre in Mostar pursuant to Article 420 of the new Criminal Code. 37.  On 7 November 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court of the unlawfulness of his detention. His application and a number of other similar applications were subsequently joined. 38.  On 21 December 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant (like others in a similar situation) had found himself in a legal vacuum following the 2003 reform of the criminal legislation. Furthermore, it held that Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex was not an appropriate institution for the detention of mental health patients. As a result, the Constitutional Court found breaches of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered the competent authorities to undertake such legislative and other measures as might be necessary within three months of delivery of the decision. The decision was delivered on 7 February 2007. It would appear that the applicant and the other complainants did not seek any compensation. 39.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Sarajevo. 40.  On 19 January 2003 he entered a tram and stabbed I.D. for no apparent reason. I.D. survived the attack. 41.  On 21 January 2003 the applicant killed E.G. under the delusion that he was persecuting his mother. He was remanded in custody the same evening. 42.  On 17 March 2003 the applicant was charged with murder. 43.  On 20 March 2003 he was transferred from the remand section of Sarajevo Prison to Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex 44.  On 9 April 2003 the Sarajevo Cantonal Court found the applicant not guilty by reason of insanity (hebephrenic schizophrenia) and imposed a hospital order on him under Article 63 of the old Criminal Code. The decision entered into force on 24 April 2003. 45.  On five occasions (28 November 2003, 9 June 2004, 11 March 2005, 10 April 2006 and 16 November 2006), the Sarajevo Cantonal Court reviewed the necessity of the applicant’s continued confinement pursuant to Article 480 § 1 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure (although the Code was no longer in force). It decided on the basis of reports prepared by Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex and Sarajevo Psychiatric Hospital that the applicant’s condition did not allow for his discharge. 46.  On 17 May 2005, 23 May 2006 and 8 February 2007 the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina upheld the decisions of 11 March 2005, 10 April 2006 and 16 November 2006 respectively. 47.  On 21 December 2006 the Constitutional Court examined a number of joined applications (including that of Mr Hadžić) and found breaches of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (see paragraphs 37-38 above). 48.  On 25 June 2007 the Sarajevo Cantonal Court established that the applicant’s mental disorder no longer warranted his confinement and ordered his conditional discharge. It relied on Article 480 § 2 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure (although the Code was no longer in force). The applicant was released from Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex on 10 July 2007.


4.  The first applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Szentendre. He is the managing director of the second applicant, a limited liability company with its seat in Szentendre, established in 1990. 5.  On 9 October 2000 a limited liability company brought an action against the second applicant before the Pest County Regional Court, requesting the court to establish its ownership on a real estate. 6.  On 12 June 2001 the plaintiff company submitted further claims and extended its action to the first applicant and six others. 7.  On 16 December 2002 the court obtained an expert opinion. 8.  On 10 October 2005 the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the first applicant, as the plaintiff withdrew this part of his claim. 9.  On 13 December 2005 the court held a hearing. It established that the discontinuation of the proceedings in respect of the first applicant had become final in the absence of appeal. The court also delivered its judgment on this day in respect of the second applicant. In the absence of appeal by the parties, the judgment became final on 3 February 2006.


5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Koper. 6.  The applicant was a director of the company named Kovinar Hrpelje p.o. (“Kovinar”).
On 21 January 1992 the applicant was first suspended for having grossly abused his position in the company. He was eventually dismissed. The applicant instituted several proceedings against Kovinar in this respect.
On 17 October 1994 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against Kovinar. The applicant took part in these proceedings, which terminated on 15 January 2003. On 17 January 2003 Kovinar ceased to exist. 7.  In the meanwhile, on 1 March 1995, the applicant had started working as an army officer for the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia. He was employed as an instructor in an army training centre. However, no contract of employment was made, because the applicant refused five times to sign the contract. As a result, the de facto employment relationship was terminated by a decision of the Ministry of Defence on 6 November 1995. 8.  On 18 March and 16 April 1992 the applicant instituted three sets of proceedings in the Koper Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Kopru) against Kovinar. The applicant sought the annulment of Kovinar's decisions concerning his suspension and dismissal, payment of unpaid salaries, damages for wrongful dismissal and damages for illegal dismissal. The court decided to examine the cases jointly.
On 24 September 1992 the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia (Sodišče združenega dela Republike Slovenije) transferred the case to the Nova Gorica Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Novi Gorici).
On 28 January 1993 the court delivered a judgment upholding the applicant's claims in part. 9.  Both parties appealed against this decision to the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia.
On 20 May 1993 the latter allowed both appeals in part, because the first-instance court had failed to rule on one of the applicant's requests, and remitted the case in part to the first-instance court. Following this decision, the part of the first-instance court's judgment referring to the illegal dismissal became final. As a consequence, Kovinar called the applicant back to work. 10.  On 22 September 1993 the Nova Gorica Court of Associated Labour upheld the applicant's claim concerning the annulment of the dismissal and dismissed the claims for compensation and continuation of his employment. 11.  Both parties appealed against this decision to the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia.
On 21 April 1994 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and allowed Kovinar's appeal in part. 12.  On 16 June 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
On 5 September 1995 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant's appeal on points of law in part and remitted the case in this respect to the first-instance court for re-examination. 13.  On 27 November 1995 the Koper Labour Court, Nova Gorica Unit (Delovno sodišče v Kopru, Oddelek v Novi Gorici) (the renamed Nova Gorica Court of Associated Labour), was informed that bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted against Kovinar. Therefore, on 29 November 1995 the court decided to stay the proceedings while the bankruptcy proceedings were pending.
On 4 November 1997 the applicant instituted a new set of proceedings in order to establish his claim in the bankruptcy proceedings.
On 13 May 1999 the case was transferred to a new judge who, on 20 May 1999, issued a decision to continue the proceedings.
On 8 September 1999 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's claims. 14.  At an undetermined time, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče). The judgment of 19 October 2001, dismissing the applicant's appeal, was served on the applicant on 6 November 2001. 15.  On 20 and 30 August and 7 September 1993 respectively the applicant instituted three sets of proceedings against Kovinar in the Koper Court of Associated Labour. He sought the declaration that his contract of employment was illegal, compensation for illegal dismissal from the post of director and the annulment of Kovinar's decision that he was temporarily a redundant worker. The court decided to examine the cases jointly. On 20 September 1993 the applicant withdrew the first and the third claims.
On 13 October 1993 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. On 26 December 1993 the judgment, dismissing the applicant's claim, was delivered. 16.  On 28 January 1994 the applicant appealed against this judgment.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
On 16 February 1995 the Higher Labour and Social Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the first-instance court and remitted the case for re-examination. 17.  On 14 June 1995 the applicant requested the continuation of the proceedings before the first-instance court, which had been stayed due to the bankruptcy proceedings pending against Kovinar.
On 11 April and 25 May 2000 the court held hearings. At the latter hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment and upheld the applicant's claims in part. 18.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 15 March 2001 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 10 April 2001. 19.  On 9 May 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which was rejected on 14 May 2002 because the applicant had failed to assess the amount of damages at stake. 20.  On 26 October 1993 Kovinar informed the applicant that it would no longer transfer his salaries to his bank account opened at bank A.
On 24 December 1993 Kovinar paid salaries to its employees and claimed that it had also transferred the applicant's salary to his bank account at bank B, although the applicant had not had an account with that bank since 21 December 1993. 21.  On 4 January 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against Kovinar in the Koper Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Kopru), requesting a written apology and claiming damages in the amount of 10,000 German marks (DEM) for disclosing his personal data to a bank.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
On 29 February 2000 the court rejected the applicant's claim for an apology and transferred the compensation claim to the Koper District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kopru). 22.  On 12 March 2001 the applicant appealed to the Koper Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Kopru) against this decision in the part concerning the costs and expenses.
On 17 February 2002 the court decided on the appeal.
On 13 December 2000 the Koper District Court held a hearing in the proceedings concerning the compensation claim. This hearing was adjourned until 12 February 2001 to allow the court the time to acquire the file on the bankruptcy proceedings pending against Kovinar.
The hearing scheduled for 12 February 2001 was adjourned, because neither of the parties appeared before the court, even though the summons had been served on them.
On 4 April 2001 the court held a hearing. At the hearing, the applicant modified his claim and requested that the court find a violation of the Personal Data Protection Act and award him appropriate damages.
On 26 June 2001 the court rejected both claims, because they were not specified as required by the law, although the applicant had been requested to amend them. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 September 2001. Before this date, he had failed to retrieve the written decision from the post office, although he had been duly informed of this possibility. 23.  On 10 September 2001 the applicant appealed to the Koper Higher Court.
On 6 December 2001 the court upheld the first-instance court's decision. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 January 2001. 24.  On 1 February 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Koper District Court.
On 27 May 2002 the court rejected the applicant's request because the sum at issue was below 5,000,000 Slovenian tolars (SIT) and the appeal on points of law was therefore not allowed. This decision became final on 21 June 2002. 25.  On 27 September 1993, 4 November 1993 and 7 July 1994 the applicant instituted four proceedings against his former employer, Kovinar, in the Koper Labour Court (Delovno sodišče v Kopru). The applicant raised complaints concerning the offer of employment, the work classification, the allegedly illegal dismissal and the payment of interest on salaries. The court decided to examine the four applications jointly.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
On 30 December 1994, following the institution of bankruptcy proceedings against Kovinar, the court decided to stay the proceedings.
On 5 November 1997 the applicant lodged two written submissions and amended his initial claims.
In February 2000, the court granted the applicant's request to continue the proceedings. During the stay of the proceedings, the applicant sent several letters and lodged written observations with the court.
On 11 April 2000 the court held a hearing at which the applicant withdrew one of his claims. The proceedings with respect to this claim were therefore terminated.
On 16 May 2000 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. In the judgment, the court upheld the applicant's claim in part. A part of the claim was dismissed as res iudicata, since the Nova Gorica Labour Court had already delivered a decision in this respect. 26.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče).
On 3 July 2002 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the applicant's appeal in part and remitted the case to the Koper Labour Court for re-examination. 27.  On 10 February 2003 the Koper Labour Court rejected the applicant's claim because Kovinar had ceased to exist on 17 January 2003, following the termination of the bankruptcy proceedings. The decision was served on the applicant on 11 February 2003 and became final on 24 February 2003. 28.  On 8 November 2004 the applicant requested that the proceedings be continued. This request was dismissed that same day. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Higher Labour and Social Court, but to no avail. 29.  On 15 September 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia (“the Ministry”) in the Koper Labour Court, Postojna Unit (Delovno sodišče v Kopru, Oddelek v Postojni), seeking payment of a portion of his salary on the basis of duty service for July 1995 and unpaid benefits in the amount of 15,868.27 Slovenian tolars (approximately 66 euros).
On 9 April 1996 the court held a hearing which was adjourned because the Ministry had lodged preliminary written submissions at the hearing.
On 10 April 1996 the applicant amended his claim.
On 25 April 1996 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. The court upheld the applicant's claim. 30.  On 31 May 1996 the Ministry appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 13 July 1998 the court allowed the appeal, set aside the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for re-examination, because the applicant had failed to state correctly the name of the defendant. 31.  On 9 October 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which was rejected by the Koper Labour Court, Postojna Unit as not allowed.
On 2 and 22 December 1998 the Koper Labour Court, Postojna Unit, held hearings. At the latter hearing the Koper Labour Court, Postojna Unit, dismissed the applicant's claim. 32.  On 11 February 1999 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 21 February 2001 the court allowed the appeal, set aside the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case to the Koper Labour Court, Postojna Unit. 33.  On 2 April 2001 the applicant requested that the case be transferred from the Koper Labour Court, Postojna Unit, to a different first-instance court. The request was dismissed on 11 April 2001.
On 22 August 2001 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. At the hearing the applicant withdrew a part of his claim.
The court upheld the applicant's claim in part. 34.  On 12 December 2001 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 14 November 2003 the court dismissed the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 4 December 2003. 35.  On 8 December 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. On 8 December 2003 the Koper Labour Court, Postojna Unit, rejected the appeal as not allowed. This decision became final on 22 December 2003. 36.  On 7 April 1995 a company called Stanovanjsko podjetje d.o.o. Zagorje ob Savi (“Podjetje”) instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant in the Trbovlje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Trbovljah), seeking payment of a debt.
On 27 July 1995 the court declared the case outside of its jurisdiction and transferred it to the Koper Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Kopru).
On 12 September 1995 the Koper Local Court issued a decision allowing the enforcement. The decision was served on the applicant on 20 October 1995. The court had attempted to serve the decision on the applicant earlier, but he had failed to collect it at the post office even though he had been notified of the delivery.
On 27 October 1995 the applicant objected to the enforcement.
On 6 November 1995 the court set aside the decision of 12 September 1995 and requested Podjetje to institute contentious civil proceedings to establish the existence of the debt. 37.  On 21 May 1999 the Koper Local Court held the first hearing. The court requested the Trbovlje Local Court to take testimony from two witnesses, which it did on 15 September 1999.
On 29 October 1999 the Koper Local Court held the second hearing. The court delivered a judgment upholding the enforcement decision of 12 September 1995. 38.  On 29 November 1999 the applicant appealed against this judgment to the Koper Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Kopru).
On 23 August 2000 the court dismissed the appeal. The decision became final immediately. It was served on the applicant on 2 November 2000.


10.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Skopje. He used to be an army serviceman of the Yugoslav Army until he retired in 1985. 11.  In former Yugoslavia, the citizens used to pay a tax for housing. On the basis of the accumulated funds the State constructed “socially owned” apartments which were then rented to individuals at legally fixed rates. 12.  The Yugoslav Army was the single army on the territory of former Yugoslavia governed by laws which were applicable throughout former Yugoslavia. The applicant, as an officer of the Yugoslav Army, paid monthly contributions from his salary to the Yugoslav Army for the construction of army apartments. All army servicemen were entitled to live in army apartments as tenants. 13.  The applicant, as an army serviceman, used to live until 1982 as a tenant in an apartment owned by the former Yugoslav Army in Skopje. Once he started working for the Macedonian Secretary of Defence, he sought to obtain a bigger apartment. On 3 June 1982 the Governing Council (Извршен совет) of the Socialistic Republic of Macedonia issued a decision by which it rented to the applicant a bigger apartment in its possession. The applicant gave up his previously rented apartment which remained the property of the former Yugoslav Army. In 1985 the applicant retired and continued living in the new apartment. 14.  On 29 December 1990 the Federal Assembly of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia enacted a Law on Housing of the Army Servicemen (Закон за станбено обезбедување во ЈНА) (“Z.S.О.J.N.A.”), according to which army servicemen, current and retired, could purchase apartments in which they lived with a price adjustment for the amount of the paid contributions for the construction of army apartments and for development of the construction land. Section 26 of that law provides that the same purchase conditions apply to apartments which do not belong to the army, as it was in the case of the applicant. According to regulations issued by the Yugoslav Federal Ministry, the price difference was to be paid by the federal army (see paragraphs 39-42 below). 15.  Following the fall of Yugoslavia and a referendum held on 8 September 1991, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia declared independence. On 17 November 1991 it adopted a Constitution (Устав на РМ) and the Law on the Implementation of the Constitution (Уставен Закон за спроведување на Уставот). According to the Constitution the laws from former Yugoslavia remain in force, except for the laws regulating the organisation and competence of the former Yugoslav federal organs. On 21 February 1992 the Macedonian President and the General of the Yugoslav Army concluded an agreement for the withdrawal of the Yugoslav Army from Macedonian territory. 16.  On 28 February 1992 the Macedonian Government concluded an Agreement for Settlement of Claims and Obligations in Respect of Real Property (Спогодба за правата и обврските во врска со примопредажбата на недвижностите на територија на Република Македонија) (“the S.P.O.V.P.N.T.R.M.”) with the Federal Yugoslav Ministry of Defence. According to this agreement the Macedonian Ministry of Defence took over all the obligations of the Yugoslav Army in respect of army apartments, including the obligation to sell these apartments with a price reduction. The Macedonian Government in 1992 and 1994 enacted regulations implementing this agreement. In 1992 the Macedonian Government enacted Regulations on the Terms of Purchase of the Apartments Obtained by Succession from the Yugoslav Army (Уредба за продажба на државниот стамбен фонд наследен од ЈНА) (“U.P.D.S.F.N.J.A.”), according to which present and former army servicemen living in apartments owned by the Macedonian Ministry of Defence, could purchase them under the Z.S.О.J.N.A. 17.  From the Ministry of Defence’s decision of 12 June 1992 it appears that the Ministry exchanged the title of its apartments which were inhabited by civilians with the title of the apartments owned by the Housing Fund (“ПУИГ”) which were inhabited by servicemen. Thereby, the servicemen were able to exercise the right under the Z.S.O.J.N.A. to purchase the apartments at a reduced price. However, this exchange was limited and concerned only six apartments owned by the Housing Fund and twenty owned by the Ministry. No details were provided as to the criteria concerning the exchange. 18.  In 1993 an amended version of the 1990 Law on the Sale of Socially Owned Apartments (Закон за продажба на станови во општествена сопственост) (“the Z.P.S.O.S.”) was promulgated in the Official Gazette. Under the law their tenants were entitled to purchase them on credit and at a beneficial price. Unlike the Z.S.О.J.N.A., the law did not provide for a price adjustment for the amount of the paid contributions for the construction of “socially owned” apartments and for development of the construction land, despite the fact that the tenants had also paid them. 19.  On 26 June 1996 the Constitutional Court abrogated the Z.S.O.J.N.A. without retroactive effect and the respective Government’s regulations on the ground that they had been contrary to the 1991 Constitution. In particular, the court stated that: a) the Yugoslav Army, its “housing fund” and the “social ownership” no longer existed; b) the 1991 Constitution had abolished all the privileges enjoyed by army servicemen; and c) the Z.S.O.J.N.A. had created an unequal treatment in comparison to the citizens who were entitled to purchase their apartments under the Z.P.S.O.S. The S.P.O.V.P.N.T.R.M. was not mentioned in the Constitutional Court’s decision. 20.  In 1992 the applicant requested the Macedonian Ministry of Defence to allow him to purchase the apartment owned by the Government at a reduced price or to give him another apartment which used to be owned by the former Yugoslav Army. On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Ministry of Defence to speed up the proceedings. On 4 December 1993 the Ministry informed him that it had been waiting for the Government to settle the issue. 21.  On 20 October 1993 the applicant and fifteen other persons asked the Constitutional Court to examine the compatibility of the Z.P.S.O.S. and the relevant regulations issued by the Ministry of Defence with the Z.S.O.J.N.A. On 29 December 1993 this was refused by the Constitutional Court. 22.  On 4 December 1993 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Skopje I Municipal Court (Општински Суд Скопје I) against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, requesting that the apartment be sold to him at a reduced price in accordance with section 21(2) of the Z.S.O.J.N.A. On 15 March 1994 the court granted the applicant’s request. The court held, inter alia, that the applicant, as a retired army serviceman, was entitled under sections 21(2) and 26 of the Z.S.O.J.N.A. to purchase the apartment at a reduced price. The court stated in particular that the purchase price should be reduced by the re-evaluated amount of the monthly contributions which the applicant had paid to the Federal Ministry of Defence for the construction of apartments and for the improvement of construction land. Whether the apartment had belonged to the Ministry of Defence or to the Government was irrelevant as both apartments now belonged to the single State-owned housing fund. 23.  The Solicitor-General (Јавен правобранител) acting for the Ministry of Defence appealed against the above decision on the ground that there was no formal agreement between the Federal Army and, at that time, the Macedonian Governing Council for an exchange of the apartments and that the applicant had given up the apartment owned by the army for a bigger apartment owned by the Governing Council. Therefore, he had accepted that the apartment in question would be subject to different statutory rules. It further stated that the Z.S.O.J.N.A. had been applicable only to the apartments owned by the former Yugoslav Army which had later become the property of the Macedonian Government, but not to other apartments. 24.  On 31 March 1995 the Skopje Appellate Court (Апелационен Суд Скопје) dismissed the appeal on the grounds (i) that an exchange of the right to use the apartments between the former Federal Army and the Macedonian Governing Council had taken place; (ii) that the applicant, as a former officer of the Yugoslav Army had paid contributions for the construction of army apartments and was therefore entitled to purchase an apartment at a reduced price under sections 21(2) and 26 of the Z.S.О.J.N.A.; and (iii) that its section 26 had explicitly regulated the cases of purchase of an apartment by an army serviceman that had not been owned by the army. 25.  On 4 May 1995 the Solicitor-General lodged an appeal on points of law (ревизија) with the Supreme Court (Врховен Суд) alleging, inter alia, that since the day of independence it had been for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to regulate the use and purchase of the apartments owned by the former Yugoslav Army and that the agreement which had been concluded with the army could not have been applicable to the apartments not owned by the said army. In 1992 the Council of Ministers enacted a regulation which had made clear that the Z.S.O.J.N.A. applied only to sale-purchase agreements for the apartments previously owned by the former Yugoslav Army. 26.  In the meantime, on 4 September 1995 the applicant and the Government concluded a purchase contract for the apartment on the basis of the Municipal and Appellate Courts’ judgments. The applicant thus purchased the apartment at a price reduced by the amount of contributions he had paid to the former Yugoslav Army. On 29 September 1995 the Skopje I Municipal Court authorised the contract. 27.  From the copy of one document issued by the Public Enterprise for Administering State Property (Јавно претпријатие за стопанисување со стамбен и деловен простор на Република Македонија), it may be deduced that the applicant paid for the apartment in 1995 at the latest. It is not clear whether later the Ministry of Defence reimbursed the Housing Fund with the price difference for the apartment. 28.  On 16 October 1997 the Supreme Court granted the appeal on points of law submitted by the Solicitor-General and dismissed the applicant’s request to purchase the apartment at a reduced price. It found that the Z.S.O.J.N.A. had provided for more beneficial conditions for the sale of apartments to army servicemen, and that it had governed the relations and status of the former Yugoslav Army and its housing fund, both of which had ceased to exist. The court held, inter alia, that as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was not a legal successor of the former Yugoslav Army, it was under no obligation whatsoever to cover the price difference. In addition, the new Macedonian Constitution had abolished special privileges of the army servicemen. 29.  The court did not mention at all the decision of the Constitutional Court and the S.P.O.V.P.N.T.R.M. Nor did it observe that the applicant had already purchased the apartment by contract or that the Ministry of Defence had exchanged a number of apartments owned by the Housing Fund and inhabited by other servicemen. 30.  The applicant was served with the decision on 16 March 1998. 31.  The parties have not indicated whether the applicant was formally registered as the owner of the apartment in the Land Registry (Државен завод за геодетски работи) after the purchase agreement was authorised by the Municipal Court in 1995. From their submissions it appears that the applicant had already recorded his title over the apartment. In addition, the parties have not indicated whether the Government have taken any legal action to enforce the Supreme Court’s judgment of 16 October 1997. There is no information that such proceedings have ever been instituted. 32.  The applicant still lives in the apartment in question.