5.  The applicants were born in 1987, 1992 and 1968 respectively. They all live in Kraków. 6.  On an unspecified date in 1988 the first applicant, represented by the third applicant, filed with the Kraków Regional Court an application under the New York Convention of 20 June 1956 on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance (“the New York Convention”) for the recovery of maintenance from his father, P.M., a Greek national. The first applicant requested that the Greek authorities institute court proceedings with the aim of recovering the maintenance and enforce any decision that might be given by the Greek courts. 7.  On 23 March 1988 the Kraków Regional Court, acting as the Transmitting Agency under the New York Convention, transmitted the application to the Greek Ministry of Justice (“the Greek Ministry”), which acted as the Receiving Agency. 8.  On 13 July 1988 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that the debtor had been summoned but had failed to appear, and that the case had been referred to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace for further action. 9.  On 5 August 1989 the Kraków Regional Court wrote to the Greek Ministry requesting information about the progress in the recovery of the maintenance. It appears that in reply the Greek Ministry resent its letter of 13 July 1988. 10.  On 22 January 1990, in response to the query from the Kraków Regional Court, the third applicant informed the court that the first applicant had not received any maintenance payments from the debtor. 11.  On 29 January 1990 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to intervene in the case. The Ministry requested the assistance of the Polish Embassy in Athens. 12.  On 3 September 1990 the third applicant and P.M. signed an agreement stipulating that P.M. would pay 10,000 Greek drachmas (29.35 EUR) in maintenance to the first applicant monthly for a period of two years. 13.  On 1 October 1990 the third applicant again informed the Kraków Regional Court that she had not received any maintenance payments from the debtor. 14.  On 2 November 1990, upon a request filed by the first applicant, the Kraków Regional Court once again requested the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to intervene in the proceedings. 15.  On 19 December 1990 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that the third applicant had hired a Greek lawyer to act in the divorce and maintenance proceedings. In the lawyer’s opinion, there were good prospects of reaching a friendly settlement in the case. Consequently, the Greek Ministry considered that its intervention at that point was not required. However, it would continue to monitor the situation and inform the Kraków Regional Court of any further developments. The applicant contested the Greek Government’s assertion that she had hired a Greek lawyer. 16.  On 19 November 1992 P.M. acknowledged before a notary his intention to pay 10,000 Greek drachmas in monthly maintenance to the first applicant until he reached the age of 18. He also promised to pay 260,000 drachmas (763.02 EUR) for the period up to 31 December 1992. The monthly maintenance payments were to be deposited on an account at the National Bank of Greece. This notarial deed was declared enforceable. 17.  On 17 February 1993 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that P.M. had acknowledged his obligation to pay maintenance to the first applicant. It requested the Kraków Regional Court to provide it with several additional documents, including the first applicant’s birth certificate and a certificate of his residence, in order for it to proceed with the transfer of the maintenance to Poland. 18.  On 15 November 1993 the Kraków Regional Court sent the requested documents to the Greek Ministry. 19.  The Greek Ministry transmitted the requested documents to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace on 1 December 1993. On 24 November 1994 that authority informed the Greek Ministry that the debtor had deposited 260,000 drachmas on a bank account on 23 November 1992. On the same date the said authority requested the debtor to inform it whether he had made any further payments to the account. The debtor replied that he had been making agreed monthly payments to the account and produced documentary evidence to this effect. 20.  In the course of divorce proceedings instituted by the third applicant against P.M., on 7 March 1994 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court delivered an interim order awarding maintenance payments by P.M. to the first applicant. The court noted that P.M.’s place of residence was unknown. On 5 January 1995 the court increased the amount of maintenance payments. 21.  On 19 July and 28 September 1994 the Kraków Regional Court wrote to the Greek Ministry requesting it to provide information about the progress of the proceedings. It appears that no reply was received to these letters. On 13 May 1996 the Kraków Regional Court sent another request for information. It noted that on 2 February 1995 the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance had issued a divorce decree in default, dissolving the third applicant’s marriage to P.M. 22.  On 11 July 1996 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that the first applicant had received a payment of 540,000 drachmas (1,584.74 EUR) in March 1995. According to the agreement between the parties, this amount was supposed to cover the maintenance due for the period from 1 October 1990 to 31 March 1995. 23.  On 19 September 1996 the Kraków Regional Court informed the third applicant about the letter of 11 July 1996 and requested her to submit comments. On 31 December 1996 the third applicant informed the court that the amount of 540,000 drachmas covered only the period between 1987 and 1990 and that she intended to lodge a claim for non-received maintenance from 1987 to 1996. 24.  On 17 June 1997 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court gave a judgment in default, increasing the amount of the maintenance payments to be made to the first applicant by P.M. 25.  On 5 May 1998 the Kraków Regional Court again requested assistance from the Greek Ministry. The court informed the Greek Ministry of the debtor’s single payment made in March 1995. The court also informed the Greek Ministry that three judgments in default had so far been given in Poland ordering P.M. to pay maintenance, and that on the basis of those judgments the first applicant had been able to receive substitute maintenance from the “Maintenance Fund” (Fundusz Alimentacyjny). In case of the lack of reaction from the debtor, the third applicant would have to request the enforcement of the Polish judgments in Greece on the basis of the bilateral agreement. No reply was received from the Greek authorities to that letter. 26.  On 25 June 1999 the Kraków Regional Court informed the third applicant that in order to recover the maintenance due to the first applicant it was necessary for her to file a request with the Kraków District Court for the recognition and the enforcement in Greece of the Polish judgments awarding the maintenance, on the basis of the Agreement of 24 October 1979 between the Polish People’s Republic and the Hellenic Republic on legal cooperation in civil and criminal matters (“the 1979 Agreement”). The first applicant filed such a request on 6 July 1999. 27.  On 16 November 1999 the Kraków Regional Court requested the assistance of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 28.  On 18 April 2000 the Polish Ministry of Justice requested the Greek Ministry to assist the first applicant in obtaining the recognition and enforcement in Greece of the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court’s judgment in default of 17 June 1997. 29.  By a letter of 17 July 2000, the Greek Ministry informed the Polish Ministry of Justice that it refused to proceed with the request for the recognition and enforcement of the Polish judgment in question. The Greek Ministry explained that the request could not be allowed due to Article 26 (d) of the 1979 Agreement. This provision stipulated that a request for recognition and enforcement could be refused in Greece if the Greek courts had the sole jurisdiction to examine the matter. Consequently, the Greek Ministry returned the request, along with the entire case file, to the Polish Ministry of Justice. 30.  On 22 March 2001 the Kraków Regional Court wrote to the Greek Ministry noting the Greek Ministry’s position expressed in its earlier letter and requesting it to urgently proceed with the recovery of the maintenance due to the first applicant in accordance with the New York Convention. 31.  On 9 May 2001 the Greek Ministry responded by reasserting the position expressed in its letter of 17 July 2000 and confirming that the entire case file had been returned to the Polish Ministry of Justice on 17 July 2000. 32.  On 15 October 2001 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court gave another judgment in default increasing the amount of the maintenance payments to the first applicant. 33.  On 14 February 2002 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry of Justice to provide it with information as to the progress of the proceedings and as to the prospects of a successful recovery of maintenance. On 2 July 2002 the Greek Ministry replied by re-sending their letter of 9 May 2001. 34.  On 2 August 2002 the Kraków Regional Court requested the International Law Department of the Polish Ministry of Justice (“the International Law Department”) to provide it with legal advice as to the further steps necessary to recover the maintenance due to the first applicant. 35.  On 25 October 2002 the International Law Department advised the Kraków Regional Court to file a new request with the Greek authorities under the New York Convention. It observed that the prospects of a successful recovery of the maintenance on the basis of the request filed in 1988 were poor, given the lack of a proper response from the Greek authorities. It further informed the Kraków Regional Court that there appeared to be no obstacles to the first applicant requesting the recognition and enforcement of the Kraków District Court’s judgment given on 15 October 2001 directly before Greek courts, on the basis of the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (“the Lugano Convention”) provided that the conditions specified in that convention had been fulfilled. 36.  On 6 January 2004 the Kraków-Podgórze District Court delivered yet another judgment in default, again increasing the amount of the maintenance due to the first applicant. 37.  On 11 August 2004 the Kraków Regional Court sent to the Greek authorities a new request filed by the first applicant under the New York Convention, asking the Greek authorities to recover maintenance in respect of the period from April 1994 onwards. In the same letter, the Kraków Regional Court also requested the Greek authorities to recognise and enforce the Polish judgment of 6 January 2004 under the Lugano Convention. 38.  On 10 November 2004 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that its request for the recovery of maintenance under the New York Convention could not be accepted, because under Article 6 (3) of that convention only Greek private international law was applicable. Consequently, the Polish court which had given the judgment awarding maintenance to the first applicant had had no jurisdiction to do so since at the time of filing the action the debtor had had his permanent residence in Greece. The Greek Ministry returned the entire request together with all attachments. 39.  On 6 December 2004 the Kraków Regional Court requested the International Law Department to provide it with a legal opinion as to the correctness of the Greek Ministry’s position. 40.  On 7 January 2005 the International Law Department stated that the position of the Greek Ministry was incorrect and that the Lugano Convention, which was binding on both Poland and Greece, did not allow Greece to invoke the sole jurisdiction of the Greek courts as an obstacle to the recognition and enforcement of Polish judgments. It noted that the Lugano Convention replaced the 1979 Agreement. The International Law Department further noted that it would perhaps be quicker for the first applicant to send a request for recognition and enforcement under the Lugano Convention directly to the competent court in Thessaloniki. Alternatively, it advised the Kraków Regional Court to resubmit its request to the Greek Ministry of Justice. 41.  On 6 May 2005 the Kraków Regional Court sent another request for the recognition and enforcement in Greece of the judgment of the Kraków-Podgórze District Court of 6 January 2004 on the basis of the Lugano Convention. In the same letter, it reminded the Greek Ministry about the request lodged under the New York Convention and requested the recovery of the maintenance due from the date of the first request filed in 1988. No reply to that request was received. Enquiries with the Polish postal service revealed that the letter had been served on the Greek Ministry on 21 June 2005. 42.  Meanwhile, on 23 August 2005 the Greek Ministry sent the first applicant’s file to the State Legal Council in order for them to proceed with the enforcement of the Kraków-Podgórze District Court’s judgment of 6 January 2004. On 1 September 2005 the State Legal Council transmitted the case to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace. 43.  On 22 December 2005 the Kraków Regional Court again sent a letter to the Greek Ministry of Justice. No reply to that letter was received. 44.  On 1 March 2006 the President of the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Embassy in Athens to intervene in the case. 45.  On 5 June 2006 the Greek Ministry asked the Kraków Regional Court for a certificate proving that P.M. had been informed of the request which had commenced the proceedings terminated by the judgment of 6 January 2004. Such a certificate was necessary to start recognition and enforcement proceedings on the basis of the Lugano Convention. 46.  On 16 August 2006 the Kraków Regional Court forwarded the requested documents to the Greek Ministry. 47.  On various dates in 2007, at the request of the third applicant, the Kraków Regional Court attested that she had not received any maintenance payments due to the first applicant. The third applicant needed the confirmation to receive substitute maintenance. 48.  On 26 January 2007 the Greek authorities lodged a request for the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of 6 January 2004 with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance. The first hearing, scheduled for 24 April 2007, was adjourned until 18 September 2007. 49.  On 23 April 2007 the Kraków Regional Court asked the Greek Ministry to provide it with further information as to the progress of the proceedings. On 26 July 2007 the Greek Ministry replied that the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance would examine the case on 18 September 2007. 50.  The hearing set for 18 September 2007 was adjourned owing to elections. Upon a request from the Greek authorities a further hearing was scheduled for 14 December 2007. It was then postponed on account of the friendly-settlement negotiations between the parties. 51.  On 28 November 2007 the Kraków Regional Court asked the Greek Ministry to inform it of the results of the court hearing. 52.  On 9 May 2008 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that on 21 March 2008 the third applicant had reached an agreement with P.M. Under the terms of that agreement P.M. was to pay 9,700 euros to the first applicant as a final settlement of the sums of maintenance awarded by the Polish court up to 18 August 2005. The third applicant declared that she would withdraw her request to enforce the judgment of 6 January 2004. 53.  On 8 June 2008 the third applicant declared that P.M. had paid his debts up to 2005 but had not made any payments for the period between 2005 and 2008, and that he was not paying the current instalments. 54.  On 14 September 2008 the third applicant declared that P.M. had paid part of his debt for the period between 2005 and 2008 (EUR 3,000) but he had not paid the interest. 55.  On 16 January 2009 the third applicant informed the Kraków Regional Court that the case could be closed. On 12 February 2009 the case was closed by the Kraków Regional Court. The latter court informed the Greek Ministry that the recovery proceedings under the New York Convention were terminated. 56.  On 29 August 2007 the first applicant filed a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints concerning a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”). He alleged that the length of the proceedings for the recovery of maintenance instituted in 1988 on his behalf by his mother on the basis of the New York Convention had been excessive. He also claimed compensation in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The applicant explained that he had not been able to recover any maintenance from his father, despite the fact that several judgments awarding maintenance had been handed down in Poland and despite the Kraków Regional Court’s repeated attempts to intervene with the Greek authorities. 57.  On 9 October 2007 the Kraków Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s complaint. It recalled that a mere reference to the overall duration of the proceedings did not suffice for a conclusion that their length had been excessive and that the applicant had failed to sufficiently specify the omissions or delays attributable to the lower court. It further observed that, in any event, the Regional Court’s role as the Transmitting Agency in the impugned proceedings under the New York Convention had been limited solely to carrying out technical and organisational tasks, which the Regional Court had duly done. 58.  On 6 January 2004 Y.M., a Greek national, was declared the father of the second applicant by the Kraków-Podgórze District Court. He was further ordered to pay monthly maintenance in the amount of PLN 900. 59.  On 26 April 2005 the second applicant, represented by his mother, filed with the Kraków Regional Court a request for the recovery of maintenance from Y.M. under the New York Convention. He requested that the Greek authorities secure a friendly settlement of the case or, alternatively, institute court proceedings with the aim of recovering the maintenance and enforce any judgment that might be given in this connection by the Greek courts. 60.  By a letter of 12 May 2005 the Kraków Regional Court asked the applicant to rectify her request, in particular by attaching the required documents. 61.  On 7 June 2005 the Kraków Regional Court, acting as the Transmitting Agency under the New York Convention, transferred the second applicant’s request to the Greek Ministry, acting as the Receiving Agency. 62.  On 10 November 2005 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry to confirm reception of the application filed by the second applicant. It appears that there was no response to that request. Enquiries with the Polish postal service revealed that the request had been served on the Greek Ministry on 28 July 2005. 63.  On 10 November 2005 the Kraków Regional Court issued a certificate for the third applicant attesting that she had not received any maintenance payments due to the second applicant. The certificate was necessary to claim substitute maintenance from the Maintenance Fund. 64.  On 1 March 2006 the Kraków Regional Court requested the assistance of the Polish Embassy in Athens. In reply, on 17 May 2006 the Polish Embassy informed the Kraków Regional Court that the Greek Ministry had instituted proceedings for the recovery of the maintenance due to the second applicant. The Embassy further informed the court that a hearing before the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance, initially scheduled for 24 March 2006, had been rescheduled for 26 May 2006. 65.  On 28 August 2006 and 23 April 2007 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry to inform it of the outcome of the hearing before the Thessaloniki court. 66.  On 22 January and 23 April 2007 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Embassy in Athens to enquire with the Greek authorities about the progress of the proceedings. 67.  On 18 September 2007 the Kraków Regional Court sent the file concerning the second applicant’s case to the International Law Department, requesting its assistance. 68.  On 16 November 2007 the International Law Department sent the case file back to the Kraków Regional Court, informing it that the second applicant should address the Greek authorities directly with a request to be provided with a copy of the decision that had apparently been given in his case by the Greek court. On 29 November 2007 the Kraków Regional Court forwarded the International Law Department’s letter to the third applicant. 69.  On 4 April 2008 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry to inform it about any further steps taken with a view to recovering the maintenance. It sent again a copy of the original request for the recovery of maintenance from Y.M. and requested the Greek Ministry’s assistance as Y.M. had not been paying maintenance due to the second applicant since 1995. On the same day, the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Embassy in Athens to intervene in the case. 70.  On 20 May 2008 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that they had already sent to it the judgment of the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance of 23 April 2007 (see paragraph 97 below). They also requested the Kraków Regional Court to provide them with additional information as to the defendant’s property, with a view to the enforcement of the judgment in Greece. The Kraków Regional Court replied to the Greek Ministry that the judgment of the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance given on 23 April 2007 in the third applicant’s case did not concern any maintenance payments in respect of the second applicant. Consequently, it requested the Greek Ministry to proceed with the recovery of the maintenance owed by Y.M. to the second applicant. 71.  In its response of 26 June 2008, the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that the Polish judgment ordering Y.M. to pay maintenance to the second applicant was a judgment in default given in Y.M.’s absence. Consequently, the Greek Ministry requested the Kraków Regional Court to provide it with documents proving that Y.M.’s rights as a defendant in the proceedings before the Polish courts had been respected, as required by Article 23 (b) of the 1979 Agreement. On 4 July 2008 the Kraków Regional Court forwarded the requested documents to the Greek Ministry. 72.  On 1 September 2008 the Greek Ministry transmitted the case to the State Legal Council as a competent authority to institute the proceedings in accordance with the New York Convention. Subsequently, the case was transmitted to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace for further action. 73.  On 3 April 2009 the Greek Ministry, acting as the Receiving Agency, filed a claim with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance for the enforcement of the Kraków-Podgórze District Court’s judgment of 6 January 2004. 74.  On 11 December 2009 the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance gave judgment, dismissing the claim. The court considered that the Ministry had no standing to file such a claim because the New York Convention did not apply to the case. It held that the Council Regulation 44/2001/EC was applicable to the case and that accordingly it was the second applicant who had standing to file a claim for enforcement. It is not clear whether the Ministry lodged an appeal against that judgment. 75.  Meanwhile, on 17 April 2008 the third applicant filed a claim with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance requesting the recognition and enforcement of the Kraków-Podgórze District Court’s judgment of 6 January 2004. The court gave judgment on 27 May 2009, dismissing the third applicant’s claim. It held that the defendant, Y.M., had not been correctly informed about the proceedings in Poland and therefore could not defend his interests in the proceedings. The court found that Y.M. had been served summons to appear at the hearing scheduled for 14 July 2003 only on 20 September 2003, i.e. after the hearing had taken place. The third applicant appealed. 76.  According to a document dated 1 December 2009 prepared by a judge of the Kraków-Podgórze District Court the rights of Y.M. had been fully respected in the proceedings leading to the Kraków-Podgórze District Court’s judgment of 6 January 2004. The judge noted that the second applicant’s claim had been filed on 20 February 2003 and that the first hearing had been scheduled for 14 July 2003. The latter hearing was adjourned since Y.M. had failed to appear and the Kraków-Podgórze District Court had had no proof that the claim had been served on the defendant. After the court was notified that the claim had been served on Y.M. on 20 September 2003 it scheduled a hearing for 6 January 2004. On that date the Kraków-Podgórze District Court heard the case and delivered judgment in default. The judgment was translated and served on Y.M. on 21 September 2004. He was instructed that he could file an objection to the judgment in default within seven days from the date of the service but he did not react. 77.  A hearing before the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal was scheduled for 17 May 2010. However, that hearing was rescheduled owing to a bomb attack which had occurred in the court in Thessaloniki several days prior to that date. Another hearing in the case, scheduled for 8 November 2010, was also rescheduled, on account of the local elections due to take place from 3 to 12 November 2010. 78.  On 10 June 2011 the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal dismissed the third applicant’s appeal. It upheld the lower court finding that the Y.M.’s rights to participate in the proceedings and to defend his interests had not been respected. Accordingly, the recognition of the judgment in issue would have been contrary to the public order. 79.  It appears that the third applicant did not lodge an appeal with the Court of Cassation. 80.  On 17 April 2008 the third applicant also lodged an action with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance against Y.M. for maintenance on behalf of the second applicant. The proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of 6 January 2004. 81.  On 18 July 2008 the second applicant, represented by his mother, filed a complaint under the 2004 Act. He claimed that the length of the proceedings for the recovery of maintenance instituted by him on 29 April 2005 on the basis of the New York Convention had been excessive. He also claimed compensation in the amount of PLN 10,000. 82.  On 27 August 2008 the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court observed that the second applicant had filed his application for recovery of maintenance under the New York Convention on 29 April 2005. It noted that the initial application had been incomplete and had had to be rectified by the second applicant before being transmitted to the Greek Ministry of Justice. The Court of Appeal considered that the transmission of documents had been carried out without undue delay. It further considered that, in the proceedings under the New York Convention, the Kraków Regional Court had only acted as the Transmitting Agency and, as such, had had no influence on the expeditiousness of the recovery of the maintenance by the Greek authorities. Moreover, the Court of Appeal found that the Regional Court, although it had not been required to do so by law, had on several occasions attempted to intervene in the proceedings by sending reminder letters to the Greek authorities and by soliciting the assistance of the Polish embassy in Athens. Consequently, the Court of Appeal considered that the Regional Court could not be held responsible for the overall length of the impugned proceedings and it dismissed the second applicant’s complaint, refusing to award him any compensation. 83.  On 23 December 2002 the Kraków Regional Court issued a divorce decree in default, dissolving the third applicant’s marriage to a Greek national, Y.M., and ordering Y.M. to pay maintenance to her. 84.  On 24 February 2003 the third applicant lodged an application with the Kraków Regional Court for the recovery of maintenance from Y.M. under the New York Convention. In her application, she requested the Greek authorities to secure a friendly settlement of the case or, alternatively, to institute proceedings with the aim of recovering the maintenance and to recognise and enforce the judgment of 23 December 2002. 85.  On 24 March 2003 the Kraków Regional Court asked the third applicant to rectify her request by attaching the required documents. On 18 August 2003 the court transmitted the application to the Greek Ministry. 86.  On 25 November 2003 the Ministry of Justice sent the applicant’s file to the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance in order for it to proceed with enforcement of the recovery of maintenance from Y.M. The efforts to summon Y.M. proved unsuccessful. On 9 February 2004 the Greek Ministry transmitted the case-file to the State Legal Council with a view to instituting enforcement proceedings in accordance with the New York Convention. Subsequently, the case was referred to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace for further action. 87.  Meanwhile, on 7 February 2004 the third applicant married S.K. According to the Polish Government, pursuant to Article 60 § 3 of the Polish Family and Custody Code, Y.M.’s obligation to pay maintenance to the third applicant ceased as a consequence of this act. The applicant contested this assertion of the Polish Government. 88.  On 23 April 2004 the Greek Ministry requested the Kraków Regional Court to provide it with proof that the summons had been served on Y.M. in the proceedings before the Kraków Regional Court. 89.  On 10 August 2004 the Kraków Regional Court sent the requested document to the Greek Ministry, observing that it had already been sent to it on 18 August 2003, together with the initial request for recovery of maintenance. 90.  On 20 October 2004 the Greek authorities brought an action against Y.M. before the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance with the aim of obtaining the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of the Kraków Regional Court of 23 December 2002. 91.  On 24 January 2005 the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance decided to adjourn the hearing in order to verify whether the matter had not already been the subject of another final judgment concerning the same parties. 92.  On 10 March 2005, 30 August 2005 and 12 January 2006 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry to provide it with information as to the progress of the proceedings. It appears that no response was received to these enquiries. 93.  On 12 January 2006 the Kraków Regional Court requested the assistance of the Polish Embassy in Athens. 94.  A hearing before the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance scheduled for 24 March 2006 was adjourned. A hearing took place on 26 May 2006. On 23 July 2006 the court decided to adjourn the hearing for the same reason as previously (see paragraph 91 above). The next hearing scheduled for 20 February 2007 was adjourned. The hearing took place on 9 March 2007. Twice in the course of the proceedings the Greek authorities lodged a request with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance for a hearing to be scheduled in the case. 95.  On 4 July 2006 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Greek Ministry to provide it with information as to the outcome of the hearing before the Thessaloniki court. Since no reply was received to that request, on 8 January 2007 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Embassy in Athens to enquire with the Greek authorities as to the outcome of the proceedings. 96.  On 12 February 2007 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court of the developments in the case. 97.  On 23 April 2007 the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance gave a judgment recognising the Kraków Regional Court’s divorce verdict of 23 December 2002 as enforceable in Greece. On 4 July 2007 the Greek Ministry sent a copy of the judgment to the Kraków Regional Court. 98.  On 14 September 2007 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Ministry of Justice to provide it with legal advice as to the further steps necessary to recover the maintenance due to the third applicant. On 16 November 2007 the Polish Ministry suggested further cooperation with the Greek Ministry and underlined that the Regional Court acted only as a Transmitting Agency. 99.  On 29 November 2007 the Kraków Regional Court informed the third applicant that she should entrust the carrying out of the enforcement proceedings in Greece to a Greek counsel. The court further informed her that the proceedings in her case would be temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the enforcement proceedings in Greece. 100.  On 18 April 2008 a copy of the judgment of 23 April 2007 was served on Y.M., together with an order of payment for 36,332.96 EUR. 101.  On 20 May 2008 the Greek Ministry asked the Polish Ministry to provide information as regards Y.M.’s assets in Greece. In reply, the third applicant provided the information that Y.M.’s assets included three taverns in Chalastra and Thessaloniki, a house in Chalastra, a flat in Thessaloniki and several cars and motorcycles. 102.  On 12 June 2008 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that enforcement proceedings against Y.M. on the basis of the judgment of the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance of 23 April 2007 had been initiated and that some property belonging to Y.M. would be seized and auctioned off. 103.  Subsequently, three auctions were organised in order to sell two of Y.M.’s apartments in Thessaloniki (on 17 September 2008, 14 January 2009 and 25 February 2009). However, this was to no avail, as there were no bidders at the auctions. 104.  On 3 April 2009 the Greek authorities requested the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance to fix a lower price for the two apartments in order to facilitate the auction. On 15 July 2009 the court partly granted the request and fixed the price at 48,000 EUR and 44,000 EUR respectively. Two subsequent auctions of 1 and 16 September 2009 were again to no avail for the lack of bidders. 105.  On 14 February 2011 the Greek authorities lodged a request with the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance to authorise the sale of Y.M.’s two apartments through an open sale. 106.  On 30 April 2012 the court dismissed the request, explaining that the Civil Code did not permit an open sale in the circumstances of the case. 107.  In the meantime, on 18 October 2010 the third applicant filed a new application for recovery of maintenance payments. It was forwarded to the Greek Ministry on 2 December 2010. The first hearing was set for 11 February 2011. 108.  On 15 June 2011 the Kraków Regional Court asked the Greek Ministry what the chances were that the maintenance would be recovered from Y.M. The Greek Ministry did not reply. 109.  The Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance was adopted and opened for signature on 20 June 1956 by the United Nations Conference on Maintenance Obligations. Poland and Greece ratified the New York Convention on 13 October 1960 and 1 November 1965 respectively. 110.  The relevant provisions of the New York Convention read as follows:
Article 1 - Scope of the Convention 1. The purpose of this Convention is to facilitate the recovery of maintenance to which a person, hereinafter referred to as claimant, who is in the territory of one of the Contracting Parties, claims to be entitled from another person, hereinafter referred to as respondent, who is subject to the jurisdiction of another Contracting Party. This purpose shall be effected through the office of agencies which will hereinafter be referred to as Transmitting and Receiving Agencies. 2. The remedies provided for in this Convention are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any remedies available under municipal or international law.
Article 3 - Application to Transmitting Agency 1. Where a claimant is in the territory of one Contracting Party, hereinafter referred to as the State of the claimant, and the respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of another Contracting Party, hereinafter referred to as the State of the respondent, the claimant may make application to a Transmitting Agency in the State of the claimant for the recovery of maintenance from the respondent. (...) 3. The application shall be accompanied by all relevant documents, including, where necessary, a power of attorney authorising the Receiving Agency to act, or to appoint some other person to act, on behalf of the claimant. It shall also be accompanied by a photograph of the claimant and, where available, a photograph of the respondent. 4. The Transmitting Agency shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the requirements of the law of the State of the Receiving Agency are complied with; ...
Article 5 - Transmission of judgments and other judicial acts 1. The Transmitting Agency shall, at the request of the claimant, transmit, under the provisions of article 4, any order, final or provisional, and any other judicial act, obtained by the claimant for the payment of maintenance in a competent tribunal of any of the Contracting Parties, and, where necessary and possible, the record of the proceedings in which such order was made. ... 2. Proceedings under article 6 may include, in accordance with the law of the State of the respondent, exequatur or registration proceedings or an action based upon the act transmitted under paragraph 1.
Article 6 - Functions of the Receiving Agency 1. The Receiving Agency shall, subject always to the authority given by the claimant, take, on behalf of the claimant, all appropriate steps for the recovery of maintenance, including the settlement of the claim and, where necessary, the institution and prosecution of an action for maintenance and the execution of any order or other judicial act for the payment of maintenance. 2. The Receiving Agency shall keep the Transmitting Agency currently informed. If it is unable to act, it shall inform the Transmitting Agency of its reasons and return the documents. 3. Notwithstanding anything in this Convention, the law applicable in the determination of all questions arising in any such action or proceedings shall be the law of the State of the respondent, including its private international law.” 111.  The Agreement between Poland and Greece entered into force on 23 December 1981. 112.  The 1979 Agreement provides, in so far as relevant:
Chapter 5
Recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil matters
Article 21
... 2. Final court decisions in civil matters concerning rights of a pecuniary nature delivered in the territory of one State Party may be recognised as enforceable in the other State-Party if they were delivered after the entry into force of the present Agreement.
Article 22
A request for the recognition or the enforcement of a court decision should be filed with the court which examined the matter in the first instance or with the competent court of the other State-Party. In the former case, the court shall transmit the request to the competent court of the other State-Party, in accordance with the procedure set out in article 2 of the present Agreement.
Article 23 1. A request for the recognition or the enforcement of a court decision should include:
...
b) a document proving that a plaintiff who did not participate in the proceedings, or his lawyer, had been informed in due time and summoned in due time to a hearing on at least one occasion.
Article 26
Refusal of recognition or enforcement
Recognition or enforcement may be refused:
...
d) if, according to the law of the State Party in whose territory the decision is to be recognised or enforced, the court of that State Party has sole jurisdiction to examine the matter. 113.  Greece and Poland ratified the Lugano Convention on 11 June 1997 and 1 November 1999 respectively. It entered into force in respect of Greece on 1 September 1997 and in respect of Poland on 1 February 2000. 114.  The relevant provisions of the Lugano Convention read as follows:
TITLE III
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT
Article 25
For the purposes of this Convention, ‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Contracting State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court.
Section 1
Recognition
Article 26
A judgment given in a Contracting State shall be recognised in the other Contracting States without any special procedure being required.
Any interested party who raises the recognition of a judgment as the principal issue in a dispute may, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Section 2 and 3 of this Title, apply for a decision that the judgment be recognised.
If the outcome of proceedings in a court of a Contracting State depends on the determination of an incidental question of recognition that court shall have jurisdiction over that question.
Article 27
A judgment shall not be recognised: 2. where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence; 3. if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the State in which recognition is sought; 4. if the court of the State of origin, in order to arrive at its judgment, has decided a preliminary question concerning the status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills or succession in a way that conflicts with a rule of the private international law of the State in which the recognition is sought, unless the same result would have been reached by the application of the rules of private international law of that State; 5. if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in a non‑contracting State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that this latter judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the State addressed.
...
Section 2
Enforcement
Article 31
A judgment given in a Contracting State and enforceable in that State shall be enforced in another Contracting State when, on the application of any interested party, it has been declared enforceable there.
...
Article 34
The court applied to shall give its decision without delay; the party against whom enforcement is sought shall not at this stage of the proceedings be entitled to make any submissions on the application.
The application may be refused only for one of the reasons specified in Articles 27 and 28.
Under no circumstances may the foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance.
Article 35
The appropriate officer of the court shall without delay bring the decision given on the application to the notice of the applicant in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law of the State in which enforcement is sought. 115.  The Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 lays down rules governing the jurisdiction of courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters in the European Union countries. The relevant provisions of the Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 read as follows:
CHAPTER III
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT
Article 32
For the purposes of this Regulation, ‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court.
Section 1
Recognition
Article 33 2. Any interested party who raises the recognition of a judgment as the principal issue in a dispute may, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of this Chapter, apply for a decision that the judgment be recognised. 3. If the outcome of proceedings in a court of a Member State depends on the determination of an incidental question of recognition that court shall have jurisdiction over that question.
Article 34
A judgment shall not be recognised: 2. where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so; 3. if it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the Member State in which recognition is sought; 4. if it is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State addressed.
...
Section 2
Enforcement
Article 38 1. A judgment given in a Member State and enforceable in that State shall be enforced in another Member State when, on the application of any interested party, it has been declared enforceable there.
...
Article 40 1. The procedure for making the application shall be governed by the law of the Member State in which enforcement is sought.
...
Article 41
The judgment shall be declared enforceable immediately on completion of the formalities in Article 53 without any review under Articles 34 and 35. The party against whom enforcement is sought shall not at this stage of the proceedings be entitled to make any submissions on the application.
Article 42 1. The decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability shall forthwith be brought to the notice of the applicant in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law of the Member State in which enforcement is sought.
...
Article 43 1. The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35. It shall give its decision without delay.


5.  The applicants, Mr Slobodan Rakić (“the first applicant”), Mr Živorad Ivković (“the second applicant”), Mr Damjan Šapić (“the third applicant”), Mr Dragan Jevtić (“the fourth applicant”), Mr Darko Glišović (“the fifth applicant”), Mr Radoš Mihajlović (“the sixth applicant”), Mr Ljubiša Janićijevic (“the seventh applicant”), Mr Nenad Jovanović (“the eight applicant”), Mr Milan Vitković (“the ninth applicant”), Mr Velibor Terentić (“the tenth applicant”), Mr Radojko Radosavljević (“the eleventh applicant”), Mr Dragoš Tomović (“the twelfth applicant”), Mr Predrag Todić (“the thirteenth applicant”), Mr Nebojša Milutinović (“the fourteenth applicant”), Mr Bojan Ilić (“the fifteenth applicant”), Mr Darko Trifunović (“the sixteenth applicant”), Mr Janko Janković (“the seventeenth applicant”), Mr Dragiša Zdravković (“the eighteenth applicant”), Mr Miljojko Đorđević (“the nineteenth applicant”), Mr Slavko Milošević (“the twentieth applicant”), Mr Miroslav Vučković (“the twenty-first applicant”), Mr Ljubinko Ćirković (“the twenty-second applicant”), Mr Veselin Božović (“the twenty-third applicant”), Mr Nebojša Đorđević (“the twenty-fourth applicant”), Mr Srećko Janićijević (“the twenty-fifth applicant”), Mr Siniša Milić (“the twenty-sixth applicant”), Mr Vladimir Avdalović (“the twenty-seventh applicant”), Mr Slavoljub Vukić (“the twenty-eighth applicant”), Mr Rodoljub Obradović (“the twenty-ninth applicant”) and Mr Dejan Pantić (“the thirtieth applicant”) are all Serbian nationals. 6.  All applicants are employed as police officers with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia (Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova Republike Srbije, hereinafter “the Ministry”). They reside and work in Kosovo.[1] 7.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  On 24 January 2000 and 17 July 2003, respectively, the Serbian Government adopted two decisions whereby, inter alia, all of its employees who resided and worked in Kosovo were to be paid double salaries. 9.  On 31 January 2000 the Ministry issued a decision stating that the police officers in question were entitled to have their salaries increased based on a coefficient of 2.5 or 4.5, depending on the circumstances. 10.  In reality, the applicants only received the increase approved by the Ministry, amounting to significantly less than the envisaged doubling of their salaries. 11.  In 2006 and 2007, therefore, they filed separate civil claims against the Ministry with the First Municipal Court (Prvi opštinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking payment of the difference between the salary increase received and the one granted by the Government (the value of the seventh, thirteenth, seventeenth, twentieth, twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth applicants' claims, respectively, exceeded 500,000 dinars, whilst the claims of all other applicants were below this threshold). The applicants further requested payment of unspecified amounts on account of the related pension and disability insurance contributions. 12.  Certain applicants were successful before the Municipal Court; others were not. However, all the applicants were unsuccessful at second instance before the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade (hereinafter “the District Court”). The applicants received those decisions on the following dates:
- the first applicant on 26 April 2007;
- the second and third applicants on 7 May 2007;
- the fourth applicant on 26 June 2007;
- the fifth applicant on 3 September 2007;
- the sixth applicant on 19 September 2007;
- the seventh applicant on 1 October 2007;
- the eighth applicant on 26 September 2007;
- the ninth, tenth and eleventh applicants on 8 October 2007;
- the twelfth applicant on 16 October 2007;
- the thirteenth and fourteenth applicants on 29 October 2007;
- the fifteenth applicant on 19 October 2007;
- the sixteenth, nineteenth and twenty-first applicants on 11 December 2007;
- the seventeenth applicant on 26 November 2007;
- the eighteenth applicant on 17 December 2007;
- the twentieth applicant on 13 December 2007;
- the twenty-second applicant on 15 January 2008;
- the twenty-third applicant on 25 January 2008;
- the twenty-fourth and twenty-eighth applicants on 11 February 2008;
- the twenty-fifth applicant on 28 February 2008;
- the twenty-sixth applicant on 27 December 2007;
- the twenty-seventh and thirtieth applicants on 20 February 2008;
- the twenty-ninth applicant on 18 February 2008.
Many of the applicant's colleagues (hereinafter “the plaintiffs”) had brought separate claims concerning the same issue; some were successful whilst others were unsuccessful in the District Court. 13.  In its reasoning in the applicants' cases, the District Court held, inter alia, that the applicable domestic regulation was contained in the decision of the Ministry adopted on 31 January 2000. 14.  However, in seventy-three other judgments, rendered between 25 January 2006 and 1 October 2008, the same District Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, notwithstanding the fact that their claims were based on the same facts and concerned identical legal issues. In its reasoning in these other cases, the District Court held, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' salaries had to be paid in accordance with the Serbian Government's decisions of 24 January 2000 and/or 17 July 2003. 15.  Of the seventy-three judgments mentioned above, in fifty cases the respondent lodged appeals on points of law (revizije) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije, see paragraphs 24 and 27 below). In the remaining twenty-three cases, however, the respondent lodged no such appeal, apparently in the light of the statutory threshold (see paragraph 25 below). 16.  The Government provided relevant case-law adopted by the Supreme Court, in particular six separate judgments of which one was issued on 3 July 2008 and the remaining five between 25 December 2008 and 1 October 2009. In each case, deciding upon appeals on points of law, the Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs, albeit with somewhat different reasoning compared to that employed by the District Court. In particular, the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that the Government's decision of 17 July 2003 had not been directly applicable. 17.  In the meantime, on 23 September 2008, the Civil Division (Građansko odeljenje) of the Supreme Court held a meeting which was meant to resolve the issue of how to rule in all cases such as the applicants' (see paragraph 29 below). In the minutes of this meeting, it was noted inter alia that in two cases registered in 2008, where appeals on points of law had been considered, the Supreme Court had in fact confirmed the lower courts' rulings rendered in favour of the plaintiffs (Rev II 429/08 and Rev 623/08). The meeting, however, was ultimately adjourned pending the outcome of a case which had been brought before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Srbije) concerning the abstract review of the constitutionality of the Government's decision adopted on 17 July 2003. On 16 April 2010 the Constitutional Court held that the impugned decision was unconstitutional. 18.  In eighteen separate cases the plaintiffs thereafter lodged their appeals with the Constitutional Court (ustavne žalbe), but, according to the information contained in the case file, these proceedings are all still pending. 19.  None of the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law or attempted to obtain constitutional redress.


6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Hagimus. 7.  Following the construction of a public road, her house was damaged and she brought an action against the Local Council. 8.  On 1 June 2001 she obtained a judgment in her favour, according to which the Local Council was obliged to pay her 155,868 Moldovan lei (MDL). On 29 January 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the Local Council’s appeal. On 11 April 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed the Local Council’s appeal on points of law and the judgment became final. 9.  It appears from the documents submitted by the applicant that on 21 May 2002 an enforcement warrant was sent by the Căuşeni District Court to the Căuşeni Department of Enforcement of Judgments. 10.  The applicant complained to the Căuşeni District Court and to the Ministry of Justice on numerous occasions about the non-enforcement of the judgment favourable to her. 11.  In a letter of 28 August 2002 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that during the enforcement proceedings the court decided to change the manner of enforcement of the judgment and on 29 July 2002 it issued a decision in that respect. That decision was challenged by one of the parties to the proceedings. 12.  In the meantime, on 11 July 2002 the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a request for annulment of all the judgments, and asked the Supreme Court of Justice to re-open the proceedings. 13.  On 2 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the request for annulment, quashed all the judgments and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings. The re-opened proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts.


4.  The applicants live in various towns of Leningrad and Pskov Regions of Russia. 5.  The applicants, all former or active military servicepersons, were entitled to certain service-related benefits, to be paid by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. In 2002 they sued the military authorities claiming the arrears related to those benefits. 6.  On the dates set out in appendixes nos. 2, 3 and 4 the domestic courts granted the applicants' claims and ordered the military authorities to pay them the respective amounts. Some of the awards were denominated in Russian roubles (RUB), whereas others were denominated in United States dollars (USD). 7.  On various dates the courts issued writs of execution. The applicants forwarded them with accompanying documents to the treasury office. However, the writs were returned to the applicants unexecuted. The treasury office explained to some of the applicants that the Ministry of Defence (the debtor) had no funds available. The applicants then addressed the writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance. However, the judgments remained unexecuted. 8.  In March-April 2003 some of the applicants wrote letters to the Ministry of Finance and other State bodies seeking the enforcement of the judgments. The Ministry of Finance replied that they had no power to execute the judgments and transfer the money from the accounts of the Ministry of Defence without the consent of the latter. The Ministry of Defence informed the applicants that the judgments could not be executed since no funds had been allocated for that purpose. 9.  On the dates set out in appendix no. 2 the applicants listed therein received the amounts due pursuant to the execution writs. They submitted copies of banking receipts as evidence in that respect. 10.  The applicants listed in appendix no. 3 were awarded various sums of money denominated in USD, to be converted into RUB at a rate applicable on the date of the judgment. However, the payments were made to them at a rate applicable on the date of the execution, which was lower. As a result, they received lesser amounts in RUB than they had expected. The applicants claimed that the judgments in their favour were thus not executed in full. They submitted copies of banking receipts and information on the official exchange rates (those of the Central Bank) on the relevant dates. 11.  Mr Sedykh, Mr Kositsyn and Mr Oleg Zakirov were also awarded various amounts denominated in USD (see appendix no. 4). Mr Sedykh was awarded a sum in USD at a rate applicable on the date of execution. The judgments in favour of Mr Kositsyn and Mr Oleg Zakirov did not indicate the exchange rate applicable for the payment. The applicants claimed that the judgments in their favour were not executed in full referring to the same arguments as the applicants listed in appendix no. 3 (see paragraph 10 above). According to the Government the judgments in favour of the applicants listed in appendix no. 3 and in favour of Mr Sedykh, Mr Kositsyn and Mr Oleg Zakirov were fully executed. 12.  On 21 January 2003 the lawyer of the above two applicants addressed the writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance. According to the official stamp of the Ministry, they were received on the same day. 13.  On 27 August 2003 the Ministry of Finance returned the documents along with the writ of execution to Mr Nikolaychuk on the ground that his lawyer had not submitted all the necessary supporting documents. According to the applicants all the necessary documents were submitted. In October 2003 the applicants' lawyer re-submitted the documents of Mr Nikolaychuk to the Ministry of Finance. 14.  According to Ms Bobrova, her documents were apparently returned to her address indicated on the writ of execution. Since Ms Bobrova did not live at that address at the time, the post office sent the documents back to the Ministry of Finance. According to the Government, the Ministry of Finance have never received Ms Bobrova's documents. 15.  The judgments in favour of Mr Nikolaychuk and Ms Bobrova (see appendix no. 4) are not executed to date.


4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region. 5.  The applicant was entitled to a disability allowance and commodity benefits. She sued the local Social Security Committee for the unpaid allowance and benefits, and claimed their re-adjustment. 6.  By judgment of 16 July 2003, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 22,109.75 Russian roubles (RUB) for the period from 1 July 2002 to 31 July 2003. On 14 October 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant received the money due to her on 7 June 2005. On 5 September 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 5,552.02 as compensation for inflationary losses caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld on 14 October 2003. It appears that the compensation award has not been paid to the applicant. 7.  By judgment of 5 January 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 13,971.25 for the period from 1 August to 31 December 2003. This judgment became final on 15 January 2004. It was enforced on 4 August 2005. 8.  On 15 April 2004 the Town Court increased the applicant’s monthly allowance to RUB 5,664.84 and awarded her RUB 9,494.52 in arrears for the period from 1 January to 31 March 2004. The judgment became final on 26 April 2004. It was enforced on 25 August 2005. 9.  On 30 September 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 9,494.52. On 11 October 2004 the judgment became final. The applicant received the money on 25 August 2005. 10.  By judgment of 15 November 2005, the Town Court awarded RUB 5,700.35 as compensation for inflationary losses in respect of the sums awarded to the applicant on 5 January, 15 April and 30 September 2004. It appears that the compensation award has not been paid to the applicant. 11.  By judgment of 16 February 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57. The judgment became final on 26 February 2004. Apparently, it remains without enforcement. 12.  On 6 September 2004 the Town Court awarded RUB 2,272.30 to the applicant and increased her monthly commodity benefits to RUB 679.78. The judgment became final on 17 September 2004. It appears that on 16 July 2004 the applicant received RUB 500 in execution of that judgment.


4.  The applicant company, Bazalt Impeks limited liability company, is a Ukrainian legal entity registered in Svitlovodsk. 5.  In June 2006 an IT company lodged a claim with the Kirovograd Regional Commercial Court against the applicant company seeking the cancellation of a contract and return of property. 6.  By a decision of 26 July 2006, the court found against the applicant company. On 2 October 2006 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court. 7.  By a decision of 12 December 2006, the Higher Commercial Court, upon the applicant company’s appeal, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and found in favour of the applicant company. 8.  On 20 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, upon the IT company’s cassation appeal, quashed the ruling of the Higher Commercial Court on the ground that its findings had been unfounded and erroneous, and upheld the decision of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court of Appeal. In taking this decision, the Supreme Court noted:
“The Supreme Court of Ukraine, with regard to the provisions of Articles 6 and 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, does not consider it necessary to remit the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court. This would be contrary to the provisions of Article 125 of the Constitution of Ukraine and sections 2 and 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judicial System of Ukraine” [the Judiciary Act] regarding the status of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and its task to ensure the administration of justice in accordance with the law. It would further cause a constitutionally unacceptable need to quash the lawful decision of the court of appeal. In this regard, the list of possible outcomes of cassation appeals against decisions of the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine envisaged in Article 111-18 of the Code of Commercial Procedure of Ukraine is not considered a legal impediment to adopting the decision.” 9.  On 5 March 2007 the decision of the Supreme Court was sent to the applicant company.


5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Szatymaz. When introducing the application, he was detained at Szeged Prison. 6.  The applicant was arrested on 8 January 2008. From 11 January 2008 on he was detained on remand at Szeged Prison on charges of trafficking in goods subject to excise tax. On 9 October 2009 the Csongrád County Regional Court found him guilty as charged. Pursuant to the final judgment of 9 June 2010 of the Szeged Court of Appeal, he served a prison sentence of three years and six months in a strict regime at Szeged Prison. His pre-trial detention was credited against his imprisonment. 7.  Szeged Prison is comprised of two separate parts: Unit I, a strict- and medium-regime facility for sentenced prisoners, and Unit II, a facility for remand prisoners. The applicant’s pre-trial detention, which is the subject matter of his complaints, took place in various cells of Unit II, and the remainder of his detention, as from 10 June 2010, in Unit I. 8.  The applicant submitted that he had shared cells with an average of 16 sq metres’ ground surface with five to seven persons, not counting furniture, and could stay outside the cell only about an hour daily. He also stated that he could receive visitors for only one hour every month (an exception being his brother, who was granted three extra visits, lasting two hours on each occasion); however, he had not been at all allowed to touch his family members during these visits. Moreover, despite his requests, the prison administration had not provided him with toiletries free of charge, nor had it authorised him to possess, with a view to preparing his defence, a personal computer in his cell, although it would have had no access to internet. Lastly, he submitted that the prison had not provided him with free stationery so that he could post submissions to the authorities in charge of his criminal case pending at that time. 9.  He submitted that his requests and complaints concerning the above matters and also the catering at the prison, to various instances of the penitentiary administration were to no avail. He availed himself of a formal remedy with regard to the refusal by the prison administration to authorise him to possess a personal computer in his cell. Whilst the Government submitted that Szeged Prison had been inspected by the penitentiary prosecutor once every two weeks, the applicant stated that no such visit had taken place in Unit II during his detention. 10.  According to the National Penitentiary Service’s statistics available on its website[1], the average occupancy rate of Hungarian prisons was 118% in 2008, 124% in 2009 and 133% in 2010.


9.  On 9 November 1994 the Braunau District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) convicted the applicant twice under the Motor Vehicles Act (Kraftfahrgesetz) for failure to comply with the instructions of the Authority to inform them who had used his car on specific days (Lenkerauskunft), and sentenced him, on each offence, to a fine of 4,000 ATS or six days’ imprisonment in default. The Authority noted that the applicant had given information but found it to be incorrect. 10.  On 29 November 1994 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Upper Austrian Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat). He complained that the District Administrative Authority had incorrectly applied the law and failed to sufficiently assess the evidence before it or clarify why the information he had given was untrue. The applicant did not request a hearing, nor did he expressly waive this right. No oral hearing was held. 11.  On 2 January 1995 the Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the appeal on the merits but reduced the sentence. 12.  On 28 February 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). He complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Independent Administrative Panel had failed to hold a hearing. Such a hearing would have been necessary because his appeal was not limited to points of law. He had also criticised the District Administrative Authority’s assessment of evidence. Therefore an oral hearing would have been necessary. In such a hearing the Independent Administrative Panel could have properly assessed this evidence, which had already been obtained at first instance, as well as fresh evidence. 13.  On 13 July 1995 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint on the ground that it did not have sufficient prospects of success. Upon a request filed by the applicant on 10 August 1995, the Constitutional Court transferred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). 14.  On 23 February 1996 the Administrative Court, relying on Section 33a of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz), declined to deal with the applicant’s case, finding that it did not raise important legal issues. On 10 May 1996 this decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer.


5.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1943 respectively and live in Warsaw. 6.  The applicants are legal successors of the former owners of a property in the vicinity of Warsaw, called Willa Janówka, composed of a number of plots owned by several individuals. 7.  In 1971 the then owners of the property, including E.P., the applicants’ mother, were obliged by an administrative decision to transfer their land to the State Treasury without compensation within the framework of a larger expropriation scheme. 8.  On 30 December 2005 the Local Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Warszawie) gave a decision concerning the applicants and three other persons, legal successors of the other former owners expropriated by the 1971 decision. It declared that that decision had been issued in flagrant breach of the law in force at the material time. The parties were further informed that the corrective decision gave rise to a compensation claim on their part for damage caused by the original unlawful decision. 9.  On 28 August 2006 the applicants sought compensation for damage caused by the decision given in 1971. 10.  On 15 May 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed the applicants’ claim and awarded 64,487 Polish zlotys (PLN) to each of them, corresponding to the value of the expropriated land. It held that the conditions determining civil liability in tort, namely a tortious event which caused damage and the establishment of a causal link between the event and the damage, were met in the case. In respect of tort committed by the State Treasury and caused by unlawful administrative decisions compensation could be sought only after a subsequent decision declared that the original administrative decision was unlawful. Such a corrective decision (decyzja nadzorcza) had been given in the applicants’ case in 2005 (see paragraph 8 above). 11.  The court went on to state that it was necessary to determine which provisions of substantive law were applicable to the circumstances of the case. The choice of substantive provisions determined, in turn, the beginning and the length of the time-limit within which the compensation claim had to be brought before the courts. The court noted that the original administrative decision had been given before 1 September 2004. On that date the Law of 17 June 2004 amending the Civil Code had entered into force. This law had fundamentally changed the legal framework concerning civil liability of the State Treasury. It abrogated, inter alia, Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure and enacted Article 417 1 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 22-24 below). The court was of the view that it was the latter provision which should be applied to the circumstances of the case. Under this provision, read together with the provisions of the Civil Code on liability in tort, the prescription period started to run only when the decision of 30 December 2005, confirming the unlawfulness of the original expropriation decision, became final. The prescription period of three years had not therefore expired. 12.  The defendant State Treasury, represented by the mayor of Warsaw, appealed. 13.  On 26 November 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal examined the appeal and dismissed the applicants’ claim. It endorsed the findings of fact made by the lower court as to the existence of pecuniary damage and the causal link between the 1971 decision and that damage. However, it was of the view that the provisions concerning the State’s civil liability in tort should have been interpreted differently by the first-instance court, in particular as to the determination of the prescription period. The court observed that under the communist regime it was practically impossible, essentially for political reasons, to vindicate claims originating in unlawful administrative decisions or to seek compensation from the State Treasury for damage in tort caused by such decisions. The earliest date on which it was possible to do so was 4 June 1989, when the first partially free parliamentary elections were held in Poland. It was from that date that the prescription period of ten years provided for by Article 442 of the Civil Code started to run. The applicants should have availed themselves of the available remedy, namely they should have obtained a decision declaring the original expropriation decision unlawful prior to 4 June 1999 when the ten-year prescription period came to an end. 14.  The applicants appealed on points of law. They argued that the contested judgment was in breach of Article 77 of the 1997 Constitution in so far as it guaranteed the right to compensation for damage caused by the State. Neither the damage caused by the 1971 decision nor its unlawfulness were in dispute between the parties.
They further submitted that the case raised a significant legal issue in so far as there were divergent strands of case-law regarding the interpretation of legal provisions governing the State’s civil liability for administrative decisions made prior to 1 September 2004 and declared unlawful after that date. These differences in the judicial approach to similar cases, both as to the determination of the beginning of the prescription period and as to its length, had a decisive influence on the outcome of compensation cases brought by victims of unlawful administrative decisions and on the applicants’ case. 15.  On 21 October 2010 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera as a single judge, refused to hear the applicants’ appeal on points of law, holding that it did not raise any significant legal issue. 16.  Parallel to the applicants’ case, A.C., a successor of another owner expropriated by the same expropriation decision given in 1971 and covered by the same corrective decision of 30 December 2005 (see paragraph 8 above), sought compensation in civil proceedings for damage caused by the original decision. She lodged her claim with the Warsaw Regional Court on 30 August 2006. 17.  By a judgment of 30 September 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed her claim and awarded her compensation in the amount of PLN 110,187, corresponding to the value of the plot of land owned by A.C.’s legal predecessor. It recounted briefly the divergent views expressed by the civil courts, including the Supreme Court, in cases concerning claims for pecuniary damage caused by administrative decisions declared unlawful after 1 September 2004. It noted that the manner in which the provisions concerning the State’s liability in tort for unlawful administrative decisions were interpreted had given rise to serious difficulties and differences of opinion in judicial practice. It disagreed with the view expressed in certain judicial decisions that the ten-year prescription period for bringing compensation claims before the courts had started to run when the unlawful decision had been given, but its running was subsequently stayed until 4 June 1989. The Regional Court was of the view that the three‑year prescription period, referred to in the former Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, was applicable to the circumstances of the case. It further held that this period had started to run when the corrective decision of 30 December 2005 declaring the 1971 decision unlawful had become final. 18.  On 5 September 2006 R.W., another legal successor of the original owners, brought a compensation case before the Warsaw Regional Court, claiming compensation from the State Treasury, represented by the mayor of Warsaw, for damage originating in the 1971 decision. He also referred to the corrective decision of 30 December 2005. 19.  By a judgment of 10 July 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed his claim and awarded him PLN 82,988, corresponding to the value of the land concerned. The court stressed that it was not in dispute that the original administrative decision had been unlawful. Nor was it in dispute that that decision had caused damage to the claimant. The court referred to the resolution given by the Supreme Court on 31 March 2011 (see paragraph 27 below). It shared the view expressed by the Supreme Court in this resolution that it was not justified to interpret the applicable provisions in a way imposing on the applicant an obligation to seek a declaration of unlawfulness of the original administrative decision within ten years after 4 June 1989.


4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Volgograd. 5.  Pursuant to a decision of the Volgograd Central District Administration of 14 October 1987 the applicant began receiving a monthly single mother allowance in respect of her daughter who was born on 15 April 1986. 6.  In 1998, from April to July, the applicant received no payments.
On 4 September 1998 the applicant brought proceedings before the Central District Court of the City of Volgograd (Центральный районный суд города Волгограда) requesting the payment of outstanding sums. 7.  By a judgment of 21 September 1998 the court allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the Finance Department of the Volgograd Regional Administration (Волгоградское облфинуправление) to pay the applicant 467.56 roubles (RUR). 8.  Following the entry into force of the judgment, the court’s bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings for recovery of the sum awarded to the applicant. However, the applicant was informed that in 1998 the court judgment could not be enforced, because the defendant lacked sufficient funds. 9.  The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment to the Department of Justice of the Volgograd Regional Administration (Управление юстиции администрации Волгоградской области), which on 16 February 1999 forwarded her complaint to the bailiff’s service of the first instance court for reply and necessary measures.
In an undated letter of 1999, the bailiff’s service informed the applicant that it had issued a writ of execution, but had not yet received from the defendant the sum due to the applicant. 10.  According to the Governments submissions, which were not contested by the applicant, the sum of RUR 467.56 was paid to her twice – on 29 September 2000 and on 9 October 2002.